[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26072-26101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9978]
[[Page 26071]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 85
May 2, 2012
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)
for Public Water Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 26072]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090; FRL-9660-4]
RIN 2040-AF10
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
the agency) establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated
contaminants and publish a list of up to 30 contaminants to be
monitored every five years. This final rule meets the SDWA requirement
by publishing the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(i.e., UCMR 3), listing the unregulated contaminants to be monitored
and addressing the requirements for such monitoring. This final rule
describes analytical methods to monitor for 28 chemical contaminants
and describes the monitoring for two viruses. UCMR 3 provides EPA and
other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the
occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, permitting the
assessment of the number of people potentially being exposed and the
levels of that exposure. These data are one of the primary sources of
occurrence and exposure information the agency uses to develop
regulatory decisions for these contaminants. In addition, as part of an
Expedited Methods Update, this rule finalizes amendatory language for a
drinking water inorganic analysis table (``Inorganic chemical sampling
and analytical requirements'') in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). This minor editorial correction to the table does not affect the
UCMR program.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 1, 2012. For purposes of
judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. Eastern time on
May 16, 2012 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090. All documents in the docket are listed in the
index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information, the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support
Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268; telephone (513) 569-7961; or email at
[email protected]. For general information, contact the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the
Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time.
The Safe Drinking Water Hotline may also be found on the Internet at
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contact.cfm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs).
All large community and non-transient non-community water systems
serving more than 10,000 people are required to monitor. A community
water system (CWS) means a PWS, which has at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves an average
of at least 25 year-round residents. A non-transient non-community
water system (NTNCWS) means a PWS that is not a CWS and regularly
serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Only a
nationally representative sample of ``small'' community and non-
transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer people are
required to monitor for the chemical analytes (see USEPA, 2001 for a
description of the statistical approach for the nationally
representative sample). EPA will pay for the analysis of samples
collected by these small systems. Transient non-community water systems
(TNCWS) (i.e., systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the
same people over six months per year) are not required to monitor for
the chemical analytes. However, transient ground water systems serving
1,000 or fewer people may be selected for virus monitoring. If
selected, these systems are required to permit EPA to sample and
analyze for List 3 contaminants and pathogen indicators. EPA will pay
for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus monitoring at
these small systems. Exhibit 1 summarizes UCMR 3 applicability by
system type and size.
Exhibit 1--Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System Type and
Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System size \1\
System type -------------------------------------------
Serving >10,000 Serving <=10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS & NTNCWS................ Requires all systems Requires 800
to monitor for List randomly selected
1 chemicals. systems to monitor
for List 1
chemicals. EPA will
pay for the
analysis of
samples.
TNCWS....................... No requirements..... No requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26073]]
UCMR 3 Screening Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS & NTNCWS................ Requires all systems Requires 480
serving more than randomly selected
100,000, and 320 systems to monitor
randomly selected for List 2
systems serving chemicals. EPA will
10,001 to 100,000 pay for the
to monitor for List analysis of
2 chemicals. samples.
TNCWS....................... No requirements..... No requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS, TNCWS & NTNCWS......... No requirements..... Requires 800
randomly selected
systems to permit
EPA to sample and
analyze List 3
microbes. The
selected systems
will be served by
non-disinfecting
ground water wells
in vulnerable
areas. EPA will pay
for the analysis of
samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on
December 31, 2010.
States, Territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs
under SDWA may participate in the implementation of UCMR 3 through
Partnership Agreements (PAs). These primacy agencies may choose to
perform the required analysis of samples collected for UCMR 3; however,
the PWS remains responsible for compliance with this rule. Regulated
categories and entities are identified in the following exhibit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, & Tribal Governments.......... States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water 924110
samples on behalf of public water systems required to
conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal
governments that directly operate community, transient
and non-transient non-community water systems required
to monitor.
Industry.................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non- 221310
community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities.............................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non- 924110
community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.
This exhibit is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding entities that may be regulated by this action. This
exhibit lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware may
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the exhibit could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the definition of PWS in Sec. 141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)
of this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section.
B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information
This document is available for download at: www.regulations.gov.
For other related information, see preceding discussion on docket.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
[mu]g/L Microgram(s) per Liter
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AGI Acute Gastrointestinal Illness
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWS Community Water System
DQO Data Quality Objectives
DSMRT Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
EO Executive Order
ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
FR Federal Register
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HCF-22 Chlorodifluoromethane
HPLC/MS/MS High-Performance Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass
Spectrometry
HRL Health Reference Level
IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
ICR Information Collection Request
IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability
IHS Indian Health Service
LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
LFSM Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix
LFSMD Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate
MDL Method Detection Limit
MRL Minimum Reporting Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
ND Not Detected
NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership Agreement
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid
PFC Perfluorinated Compounds
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid
PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid
PT Proficiency Testing
PWS Public Water System
qPCR Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfD Reference Dose
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SM Standard Methods
SRF State Revolving Fund
SBA Small Business Administration
[[Page 26074]]
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information
II. Statutory Authority and Background
A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR?
B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?
III. Summary of This Rule
A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final
UCMR 3 rule?
B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor
1. Applicability Based on Population Served
2. Applicability for Transient Systems
C. Where are samples collected?
1. Entry Point to the Distribution System
2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time Location
D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods?
1. List Compilation
2. Hormones and Related Methods
3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related Methods
4. Chromium-6 and Total Chromium, and Related Methods
5. Viruses and Related Methods
6. Perfluorinated Compounds and Related Methods
E. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
F. How were minimum reporting levels determined?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting requirements?
1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS
2. Sample Location and Inventory Information (Zip Codes)
3. Disinfectant Type Specifications
4. Reporting Schedule
IV. State and Tribal Participation
A. Partnership Agreements
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.
K. Congressional Review Act
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VIII. References
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System
Type and Size
Exhibit 2a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists
Exhibit 2b: Total Chromium Monitoring\3\
Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities
Exhibit 4: Changes to UCMR 3 Between Proposed and Final Rule
Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods
Exhibit 5b: Total Chromium Monitoring
Exhibit 6: Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination
Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the
ICR Period (2012-2014)
Exhibit 8: UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden (2012-2014)
Exhibit 9: Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems
Subject to UCMR 3
Exhibit 10: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3
at Small Systems
Exhibit 11: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-
Owned Systems (2012-2016)
Exhibit 12: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-
Owned Systems (2012-2016)
II. Statutory Authority and Background
A. What is the statutory authority for UCMR?
Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that once
every five years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to
be monitored by public water systems (PWSs). It also requires that EPA
enter the monitoring data into the Agency's National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA must ensure that only a
nationally representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people
is required to monitor. EPA must also vary the frequency and schedule
for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of
supply, and the contaminants likely to be found.
Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that
every person who is subject to any SDWA requirements establish and
maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and
provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by
regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA
regulations. Pursuant to this authority, EPA is requiring the
monitoring of total chromium under this final rule.
B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?
This final rule fulfills EPA's obligation under SDWA by identifying
29 unregulated contaminants for monitoring during the third UCMR,
referred to as ``UCMR 3.'' These contaminants include: 27 chemicals
measured using up to seven analytical methods and/or four equivalent
consensus organization-developed methods, and two viruses measured
using one sample collection and two detection methods. In conjunction
with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, monitoring for total chromium is
also required. Total chromium monitoring is required under the
authority provided in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA. EPA has developed
the contaminant list (Exhibit 2a and 2b) and sampling design for UCMR 3
(2012-2016) with input from both stakeholders and an EPA-State working
group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 2a--UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1, Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,4-dioxane............................ vanadium.
molybdenum............................. strontium.
cobalt................................. chromium-6 (hexavalent
chromium)\1\.
[[Page 26075]]
1,2,3-trichloropropane................. chlorate.
1,3-butadiene.......................... perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS).
chloromethane (methyl chloride)........ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
1,1-dichloroethane..................... perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).
bromochloromethane (Halon 1011)........ perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
(PFHxS).
bromomethane (methyl bromide).......... perfluoroheptanoic acid
(PFHpA).
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)........ perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
(PFBS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2, Screening Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol.................... estriol.
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl equilin.
estradiol).
estrone................................ testosterone.
4-androstene-3,17-dione. ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3, Pre-Screen Testing \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
enteroviruses.......................... noroviruses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 2b--Total Chromium Monitoring \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total chromium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chromium-6 will be measured as soluble chromate (ion).
\2\ Monitoring for microbial indicators--in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre-
Screen Testing--is also required. This monitoring includes sampling
for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli,
bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores). It is not subject to
the stipulation in Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA that restricts
UCMR contaminants to not more than 30. List 3 monitoring, including
monitoring of microbial indicators, is only required at selected small
systems. EPA will collect the samples from List 3 sampling locations,
and will pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus
and indicator monitoring at these small systems.
\3\ Monitoring for total chromium--in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment
Monitoring--is required under the authority provided in Section
1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA.
This list differs from that provided in the March 3, 2011, proposed
rule (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)) as follows: chromium-6 (hexavalent
chromium) and total chromium have been added; sec-butylbenzene and n-
propylbenzene have been deleted; and monitoring of hormones was moved
from Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to Screening Survey (List 2).
III. Summary of This Rule
Public water systems (PWS) or EPA will conduct sampling and
analysis for Assessment Monitoring (List 1), Screening Survey (List 2),
and Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) contaminants, as applicable, at each
PWS subject to this rule during a 12 month period within the 2013 to
2015 time frame. Preparations prior to 2013 include coordination of
laboratory approval, selection of representative samples of small
systems, development of State Monitoring Plans, establishment of
monitoring schedules, and notification of participating PWSs. Exhibit 3
illustrates the major activities that will take place during
implementation of UCMR 3.
[[Page 26076]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY12.000
EPA generally divides unregulated contaminant monitoring into three
types of monitoring, or ``lists.'' ``Assessment Monitoring'' is the
largest in scope of the three UCMR monitoring lists or tiers. Under
UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, 20 ``List 1'' contaminants will be
monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking water; total
chromium will be monitored in conjunction with Assessment Monitoring.
These are the contaminants for which analytical method technologies are
well established.
The second tier of UCMR is referred to as ``List 2'' or ``Screening
Survey'' monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those with analytical
methods that have generally been more recently developed and employ
technologies that are not as widely used or laboratory capacity may be
insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. Under
the UCMR 3 Screening Survey, seven ``List 2'' contaminants will be
monitored by certain systems (see Exhibit 3).
``Pre-Screen Testing,'' the third tier of UCMR monitoring is
generally designed for ``List 3'' contaminants with very new or
specialized analytical methods. Under UCMR 3, a selected set of 800
systems that serve fewer than 1,000 retail customers and that do not
disinfect are required to assist EPA in sampling their system for two
viruses on ``List 3'' and the associated pathogen indicators (i.e.,
total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic
spores). This requirement includes community and non-transient, non-
community water systems and transient systems.
EPA will pay for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees,
and analysis costs to minimize the impact of the rule on small systems
(those serving 10,000 or fewer people). In addition, no small system
will be required to monitor for more than one ``List'' of contaminants.
Large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) will pay for the
cost of shipping and laboratory testing for their List 1 and, as
applicable, List 2 analyses.
The data collected through the UCMR program are being stored in
NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence, guide
the conduct of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process and support
the Administrator in making regulatory decisions for contaminants in
the interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA
Section 1412(b)(1). Results of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring can be viewed by
the public at EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm.
[[Page 26077]]
A. What are the major changes between the proposed and final UCMR 3
rule?
EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems;'' Proposed Rule, on March
3, 2011 (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)). EPA received input from 53
public commenters. After considering the comments, EPA added chromium-6
to the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored; removed sec-
butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene; and moved monitoring of hormones from
Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey. EPA is also requiring
PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium-6
monitoring. EPA revised or clarified requirements pertaining to UCMR
applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring and quality control.
Exhibit 4 provides a summary of these changes and a listing of the
corresponding preamble section that provides a more detailed discussion
of the revisions and related public comments. Sections III.B-G
summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated major
comments received in response to the proposed rule. EPA has compiled a
more detailed document containing all public comments and EPA's
responses entitled: ``Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3),'' (USEPA, 2012b), which can
be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov, and searching for
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090.
Exhibit 4--Changes to UCMR 3 between Proposed and Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule section
--------------------------------------------------------------- Description of change Corresponding preamble
Number Title/description section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1).............. Data elements.......... Revise zip code III.G.2 Sample location
reporting to include and inventory
only the zip codes for information (zip
all customers served, codes).
rather than those
associated with each
sampling point.
141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi) Reporting schedule..... Change laboratory III.G.4 Reporting
reporting time to 120 schedule.
days, rather than 60
days; change PWS
reporting time to 60
days after laboratory
posting, rather than
30 days.
141.40(a)(2)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(A); Analytes to be Add chromium-6; remove III.D.4 Chromium-6 and
and 141.40(a)(3) Table 1. monitored and related requirement to monitor total chromium, and
specifications. for sec-butylbenzene related methods.
and n-propylbenzene; III.D.1 List
require total chromium compilation.
monitoring under SDWA III.D.2 Hormones and
Section 1445 related methods.
(a)(1)(A); move
hormone monitoring to
Screening Survey.
141.35(c)(2)......................... Sample location and Large systems must III.G.4 Reporting
inventory information. provide sample schedule.
location and inventory
information to EPA by
October 1, 2012.
141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and Distribution system Revise definition of III.C Where are samples
141.40 (a)(4)(i)(C). maximum residence time DSMRT sample required collected?
(DSMRT) sample for specific List 1 III.D.3 Metals,
location. contaminants. chlorate, and related
methods.
141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40 (a)(4)(i). General rescheduling Large systems may III.G.4 Reporting
notification. independently change schedule.
List 1 or List 2
monitoring schedule by
October 1, 2012.
141.35(c)(3)......................... Ground water Large systems may III.C Where are samples
representative submit representative collected?
sampling locations. sampling plan III.G.4 Reporting
proposals or changes schedule.
to existing plans by
August 1, 2012.
141.40(a)(3) Table 1 footnote c...... Representative intake.. Systems that purchase III.C Where are samples
water from the same collected?
wholesaler may sample
from a representative
intake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor
1. Applicability Based on Population Served
a. This Rule
This rule requires that Assessment Monitoring (for List 1
contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non-transient
non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 people, and a
nationally representative sample of 800 small water systems serving
10,000 or fewer people; and that the Screening Survey (for List 2
contaminants) be conducted by all large community and non-transient
non-community water systems serving more than 100,000 people, a
nationally representative sample of 320 large systems serving 10,001 to
100,000 people, and a nationally representative sample of 480 small
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people (as indicated by Federal
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) on December 31,
2010). Transient non-community water systems are excluded from
Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey. In contrast to
implementation of UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring, those systems that purchase
all of their finished water from another system are not excluded from
the requirements of UCMR 3.
[[Page 26078]]
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received six (6) comments concerning UCMR monitoring based on
retail population served. The commenters all agreed that applicability
should be based on retail population, although some wanted to exclude
those who purchase their water from that applicability. In UCMR 1 and
2, systems that purchased 100% of their water were excluded from
monitoring, making estimates of exposure more difficult because many of
these purchasing systems represented high-population areas. For UCMR 3,
systems that purchase 100% of their water and serve greater than 10,000
people are subject to this rule. Wholesalers that serve a retail
population of 10,000 or fewer customers are only required to monitor if
they are selected as part of the nationally representative sample of
small systems for any list of UCMR contaminants. This should greatly
improve exposure estimates for UCMR 3 since exposure estimates will be
based on the monitoring data collected from where the water is consumed
rather than where it is sold. Between the wholesaler and the purchasing
system, contaminant levels may increase (e.g., DBPs or metals) or
decrease (e.g., through blending various sources or degradation/
chemical reactions).
Some commenters also expressed concern that this applicability
change could add an estimated 1,250 systems to the list of those that
need to monitor and suggested that this would represent a substantial
increase in burden to the drinking water industry. To help mitigate the
burden, EPA is allowing those systems that purchase water with multiple
connections from the same wholesaler to select a representative
connection for sampling. See Section III.C.1.a for further discussion.
In addition, EPA notes that approximately 450 wholesale systems will no
longer be subject to monitoring; the net increase is approximately 800
systems.
2. Applicability for Transient Systems
a. This Rule
Under UCMR 1 and 2, transient non-community water systems were
specifically exempted from monitoring. UCMR 3 now requires
participation by transient systems that are selected for Pre-Screen
Testing for List 3 contaminants. Under UCMR 3, EPA is conducting Pre-
Screen Testing for enterovirus and norovirus, as well as related
pathogen indicators, at selected undisinfected ground water systems
that serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is including transient systems
among the candidate systems--and focusing on viruses at those systems--
since viruses are acute pathogens and exposure through a one-time
ingestion (e.g., at a transient system) is of potential health concern.
Under 141.40(a)(1) and 141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any system
(including transient systems) is notified by EPA or its State that it
has been selected for Pre-Screen Testing, the system must permit EPA
(at EPA's expense) to sample and analyze for List 3 contaminants and
pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage,
Enterococci and aerobic spores).
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received two (2) comments on including transient non-community
systems for List 3 monitoring. One fully supported their inclusion, and
the other expressed concern that EPA would not be able to adequately
fund the collection and processing of these samples. EPA is confident
that it has budgeted sufficient funds to support these activities. As
the second commenter noted, transient systems represent a substantial
number of the systems serving less than 1,000 customers; therefore, the
sampling of these potentially vulnerable systems for these acute
pathogens is considered important.
C. Where are samples collected?
1. Entry Point to the Distribution System
a. This Rule
As was the case under UCMR 2, UCMR 3 samples will be collected at
entry points to the distribution system (EPTDS). PWSs may perform
sampling at representative sampling locations in two cases:
Demonstrating Representative Ground Water Sampling
Locations: Under this rule, large systems that use ground water sources
and have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring
at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. To
monitor at representative EPTDSs, large systems must meet the criteria
specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(3) and receive approval from EPA or the
State. Changes to the rule language clarify that when identifying a
representative well, the well must be representative of the highest
producing (based on annual volume) and most consistently active wells.
In addition, the representative well must be in use at the scheduled
sampling time. An alternative location must be sampled if the
representative EPTDS is not available at the time of scheduled
sampling. This rule establishes a deadline of August 1, 2012 for
submission of new proposals or updates to existing plans. See Section
III.G.4 for further discussion.
Representative Intakes from Wholesaler: As specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c, systems that purchase water
with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one
representative connection from that wholesaler for UCMR sampling. If a
PWS chooses to select a representative intake, each representative
intake must receive water from the same source. Additionally, if a PWS
chooses to select a representative intake, it must choose a sampling
location that represents the highest volume EPTDS connection and is in
use at the time of scheduled sampling. If the connection initially
selected as the representative EPTDS is not available at the time of
scheduled sampling, an alternate representative connection must be
sampled.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Five (5) commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal regarding
representative sampling points, and representative intakes for PWSs
with multiple connections from the same wholesaler; commenters cited
cost savings as a benefit of this approach. One commenter also
suggested that EPA's approach to representative sampling locations
should provide additional flexibility in cases where multiple water
systems are receiving water from the same wholesale provider. EPA
acknowledges that there are many unique situations with the purchase
and sale of drinking water at the wholesale level. In this final rule,
EPA has provided clarifying language in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1,
footnote c, specifying that a PWS may select a representative intake
from a given wholesaler. EPA is available to advise PWSs regarding
choosing the most appropriate sampling site, based on their purchasing
situation. However, EPA is requiring all systems that purchase 100% of
their water to monitor, for the reasons described in Section III.B.1 of
this preamble. Based on the experience of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA
believes it is more appropriate to measure at each purchasing system to
more accurately assess exposure. This approach relies on each
purchasing system to monitor, thus ensuring the monitoring results
reflect any potential water quality changes between the wholesaler and
each purchasing system.
[[Page 26079]]
2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time Location
a. This Rule
This rule requires systems that participate in Assessment
Monitoring to also sample for total chromium, chromium-6, cobalt,
molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate both at EPTDSs and in the
distribution system. This rule requires systems to collect the samples
for these analytes at their distribution system maximum residence time
(DSMRT) location(s), (Sec. Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and
141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). For clarity, EPA deleted the UCMR reference to the
DSMRT specifications under the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule at
Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(i). EPA now defines DSMRT under UCMR as an active
point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in
the distribution system where the water has been in the system the
longest relative to the EPTDS. Systems that are subject to the Stage 2
Disinfection By-Products Rule should use their total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) highest concentration sampling site(s) as their DSMRT sampling
site(s) (USEPA, 2003).
b. Summary of Major Comments
As described in greater detail in Section III.D.3., ``Metals,
chlorate, and related methods,'' several commenters suggested that EPA
had provided insufficient rationale for requiring DSMRT sampling for
cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate. As elements that
may occur in water both naturally, or through industrial activities,
cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium are expected to be commonly
detected in drinking water. EPA believes these metals may be
incorporated into pipe deposits and subsequent erosion and/or
dissolution may result in waterborne concentrations that differ between
the DSMRT and the EPTDS. Regarding chlorate, the use of disinfectants,
including use of hypochlorite, chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and ozone
can result in chlorate formation. The presence of residual disinfectant
in the distribution system and chlorine boosters within the
distribution system may result in increases in chlorate concentrations
at the DSMRT relative to the EPTDS.
D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and associated methods?
1. List Compilation
a. This Rule
EPA is maintaining the list of unregulated contaminants and methods
proposed for monitoring with the exception of adding chromium-6, and
removing sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene (see Exhibit 5a). EPA is
also requiring PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all
chromium-6 monitoring (Exhibit 5b). The additional data generated by
side-by-side measurements of chromium-6 and total chromium will provide
valuable information on relative occurrence and the utility of
monitoring for total chromium as a surrogate for chromium-6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS): \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2,3-trichloropropane................. bromomethane (methyl bromide).
1,3-butadiene.......................... bromochloromethane (Halon
1011).
chloromethane (methyl chloride)........ chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-
22).
1,1-dichloroethane. ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS): \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,4-dioxane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) \3\ or alternate SM \4\ or ASTM
Methods: \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cobalt................................. strontium.
molybdenum............................. vanadium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) \6\ or
alternate SM \7\ or ASTM Methods: \8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
chlorate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS): \9\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).... perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
(PFHxS).
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).......... perfluoroheptanoic acid
(PFHpA).
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).......... perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
(PFBS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium-6 using EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV-VIS): \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
chromium-6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS): \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol.................... estrone.
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl testosterone.
estradiol).
estriol (16-[alpha]-hydroxy-17-[beta]- 4-androstene-3,17-dione.
estradiol).
equilin. ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26080]]
Pre-Screen Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Viruses (see Section III.D.5 for methods discussion): \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
enterovirus............................ norovirus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 5b--Total Chromium Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Chromium using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) \4\ or alternate SM \5\
or ASTM Methods: \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total chromium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a).
\2\ EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008).
\3\ EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994).
\4\ SM 3125 (SM, 21st Ed., 2005).
\5\ ASTM D5673-10 (ASTM, 2010).
\6\ EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997).
\7\ SM 4110D (SM, 21st Ed., 2005).
\8\ ASTM D6581-08 (ASTM, 2008).
\9\ EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b).
\10\ EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV-VIS) (USEPA, 2011b).
\11\ EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010e).
\12\ Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e.,
total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic
spores). EPA will pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated
with monitoring at these small systems.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 3
analytes were generally supportive. Several commenters suggested that
cyanobacterial toxins be added to the list of analytes. EPA agrees that
cyanobacterial toxins are of significant interest for future drinking
water monitoring. However, EPA currently does not have an available
drinking water method for analysis of cyanobacterial toxins. While
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and high-performance liquid
chromatography with UV detection (HPLC/UV) methods have been published
(Howard and Boyer, 2007), they do not provide the level of specificity
needed for UCMR monitoring. The high-performance liquid chromatography/
tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) methods for cyanobacterial toxins
that have been published (Oehrle et al., 2010), do not provide suitable
accuracy and precision. EPA has conducted and will continue to conduct
methods development research for cyanobacterial toxins both in-house
and in cooperation with other laboratories.
2. Hormones and Related Methods
a. This Rule
EPA is revising the requirement for monitoring of the hormones (17-
[beta]-estradiol; 17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol; estriol; equilin;
estrone; testosterone; and, 4-androstene-3,17-dione), by moving the
monitoring from Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Three major issues concerning the hormones were raised by
commenters. The first was a concern that other than 17-[alpha]-
ethynylestradiol, the hormones all occur naturally. Based on the low
minimum reporting levels (MRLs) specified in this rule, these
commenters were concerned that there may be issues with false positives
due to background levels of these compounds from samplers.
The ranges of blank results observed during the determination of
MRLs are contained in Exhibit 6. In all cases the laboratories easily
met the requirement that the concentration of the analytes observed in
the blank must be less than one-third of the MRL. In the ``worst case''
the observed blank level equaled one-eighth the MRL. EPA is requiring
the collection of field blank samples for UCMR 3 and, to minimize the
potential issue of field blank and sample contamination, will provide
instructions to both the samplers and the laboratory personnel to wear
nitrile gloves when collecting or handling samples for the hormones.
These details are specified in EPA's technical manual titled: ``UCMR 3
Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document'' (USEPA,
2012d).
Exhibit 6--Observed Background Levels During MRL Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory 1 Laboratory 2 Laboratory 3
Analyte UCMR MRL ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol.............. 0.0004.............. ND--0.00006 ND ND--0.00005
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol...... 0.0009.............. ND--0.00007 ND--0.00008 ND--0.0002
estriol.......................... 0.0008.............. ND--0.00007 ND ND--0.00006
equilin.......................... 0.004............... ND--0.00002 ND ND--0.0005
estrone.......................... 0.002............... ND--0.0001 0.00001--0.00003 0.02--0.0002
testosterone..................... 0.0001.............. ND ND ND--0.00001
4-androstene-3,17-dione.......... 0.0003.............. ND ND ND--0.000008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND = Not Detected.
EPA also stipulated in the rule that it will evaluate the situation
after six months of monitoring. If at that time, the data indicate that
excessive resampling is occurring, EPA will establish alternative MRLs
and will notify all affected PWSs and laboratories.
The second issue concerned whether all of the proposed hormones
should be monitored (versus a subset of them). There was no consensus
among the commenters as to what the ``subset'' should be. Some
commenters suggested that monitoring be limited to the five (5)
[[Page 26081]]
proposed hormones that are also listed on the final CCL 3 (17-[beta]-
estradiol, 17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol, estriol, equilin and estrone).
EPA believes that monitoring for testosterone and 4-androstene-3,17-
dione is also justified. A number of articles have been published that
show the occurrence of testosterone and 4-androstene-3,17-dione in
surface waters:
National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999-2000): detects
of testosterone in 2 (2.8%) of 70 samples at a median concentration of
0.116 [mu]g/L and a maximum concentration of 0.214 [mu]g/L (Kolpin et
al., 2002).
California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains
(2003-2005): detects of testosterone in 2 (18%) of 11 river samples at
a maximum concentration of 0.0006 [mu]g/L; detects in 4 (27%) of 15
irrigation canal samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0019 [mu]g/L;
detects in 2 (33%) of 6 tile drain samples at a maximum concentration
of <0.0003 [mu]g/L (Kolodziej et al., 2004).
California Surface Waters (2005-2006): detects of 4-
androstene-3,17-dione in 16 (18%) of 89 grazing rangeland surface water
samples at a maximum concentration of 0.044 [mu]g/L (Kolodziej and
Sedlak, 2007).
In addition, testosterone and 4-androstene-3,17-dione have been
shown to be relatively resistant to oxidation (Mash et al., 2010).
The third issue concerned the potential for insufficient laboratory
capacity for the monitoring of hormones. Since EPA has moved the
hormone monitoring requirement from Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to
Screening Survey (List 2), this will substantially reduce the number of
PWSs required to monitor for hormones and mitigate any concerns
regarding laboratory capacity.
3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
This rule requires that samples for the metals--chromium-6, total
chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium--as well as
chlorate, be collected at one distribution system sampling point per
treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT) in addition to sampling at the
EPTDS. DSMRT samples must be collected at a location that represents
the maximum residence time in the distribution system (Sec. Sec.
141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and 141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). (As noted in
Section III.C.2.a of this preamble, EPA clarified the DSMRT
specifications and deleted the direct DSMRT reference under the Stage 1
Disinfection Byproducts Rule at Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(i).)
EPA is requiring that chlorate samples be collected at both the
EPTDS and DSMRT locations to permit the agency to evaluate if chlorate
occurs as an oxyhalide disinfection by-product.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Eight (8) commenters suggested that further justification was
needed to support monitoring cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and
vanadium at the DSMRT. Three commenters also made similar comments
regarding chlorate. Research indicates that vanadium can become
incorporated in the corrosion products in iron pipes used for drinking
water distribution. As a result, vanadium may be released via
dissolution and/or erosion of the mineral deposits that form inside
many iron distribution pipes. Gerke et al., (2010) cite research that
indicates that relatively minor scouring of these deposits can result
in water concentrations of vanadium in excess of 15 [mu]g/L. Similar
findings were published by the Water Research Foundation (Friedman et
al., 2009). The authors reported vanadium in scaling from several
different distribution systems. As a reference point, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has established an
Interim Minimal Risk Level of 0.003 mg/kg/day; a 70 kg adult drinking
two liters of water per day would exceed the RfD through water
consumption alone if the concentration in the water was greater than 21
[mu]g/L (ATSDR, 2009).
Molybdenum has been identified as being among the heavy metals that
can be mobilized from reservoir sediments containing iron and aluminum
oxides and hydroxides. Fluctuations in pH of approximately 0.2 pH units
were sufficient to considerably affect the release of previously
adsorbed molybdenum (Friedman et al., 2009).
Although such findings for cobalt and strontium are not available
in the scientific literature, these two elements commonly occur in
drinking water. As a result, EPA believes that incorporation of cobalt
and/or strontium into pipe deposits within a distribution system could
result in mobilization of these metals into drinking water within the
distribution system via dissolution and/or erosion. Strontium has been
found in greatest amounts in calcium-rich minerals and sediments due to
similarities in atomic radii (Fairbridge, 1972). In addition, Friedman
et al., (2009) report calcium to be the fourth most concentrated
element found in pipe deposit samples. Thus, erosion and/or dissolution
of pipe deposits within the distribution system may affect human
exposure levels for cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium.
The presence of residual disinfectant in the distribution system
may result in increases in chlorate concentrations at the DSMRT
relative to the EPTDS. The following studies on chlorate formation have
linked its presence in treated drinking water to the use of several
disinfection processes:
The generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and free
chlorine (Gordon et al., 1990; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al.,
1994);
The generation of chlorine dioxide from chlorite and
hypochlorite (Gallagher et al., 1994);
Chlorine dioxide oxidation by residual free chlorine
(Gordon and Tachiyashiki, 1991; Bolyard et al., 1993);
Transition metal-catalyzed free chlorine decomposition
during disinfection (Gordon et al., 1995);
Base-catalyzed disproportionation of chlorine dioxide
(USEPA, 1999a; Gallagher et al., 1994);
Photodecomposition of chlorine dioxide (Rice and Gomez-
Taylor, 1986; Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al., 1994; Bergmann
and Koparal, 2005);
Use of chlorate-contaminated hypochlorite solutions--
chlorate can come from either the impurity of the original stock
solution or decomposition during storage (Bolyard et al., 1992; Bolyard
et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1995; Gordon et al.,
1997; USEPA, 1999a; WHO, 2005; Snyder et al., 2009; Stanford et al.,
2011);
Use of ozone with residual chlorine (Siddiqui, 1996; von
Gunten, 2003); and
Use of electrochemical disinfection processes (Czarnetzki
and Janssen, 1992; Bergmann and Koparal, 2005).
4. Chromium-6 and Total Chromium, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
While EPA did not include chromium-6 in the proposed list of
chemicals for UCMR 3 monitoring, EPA did request comment on whether the
agency should include it in the final rule due to the concerns about
its potential occurrence in public water supplies. EPA also requested
comments on whether total chromium should be measured concurrent with
chromium-6. Commenters strongly supported requiring monitoring for both
chromium-6 and total chromium.
EPA agrees with these commenters and has added chromium-6 to the
list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored. EPA is also requiring
PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium-6
[[Page 26082]]
monitoring. EPA completed the development and validation of a revised
analytical method for the determination of chromium-6 in drinking
water, EPA Method 218.7: Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post-Column Derivatization
and UV-Visible Spectroscopic Detection. This revised method has been
extensively studied both within EPA and ion chromatography
manufacturers' laboratories as well as through external laboratory
validation (USEPA, 2011b).
EPA is using the authority provided in SDWA Section 1445(a)(1)(A)
to require monitoring for total chromium in conjunction with the UCMR 3
monitoring of chromium-6. EPA has removed sec-butylbenzene and n-
propylbenzene from UCMR 3. More specifically, the agency has removed
sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene from the UCMR 3 Assessment
Monitoring list.
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received 30 comments regarding the inclusion of chromium-6 in
UCMR 3. Twenty-eight of the 30 commenters supported inclusion. The
other two suggested that a health risk from drinking water exposure had
not been conclusively established, that regional levels of total
chromium in drinking water are very low and that speciation would not
be beneficial. The agency believes that the ongoing studies of
chromium-6 toxicity warrant UCMR monitoring at this time. EPA believes
that collecting national occurrence data will provide beneficial
information to the agency regarding how best to protect human health.
EPA's second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (USEPA, 2010d) indicated that the levels of total chromium
warrant further investigation of chromium-6 occurrence. Chromium can
enter the environment from both natural and industrial sources; thus
the distribution of both total chromium and chromium-6 may vary based
on regional geology and regional industrial activity. Part of the goal
of UCMR is to assess the national distribution of the contaminants
selected.
Commenters who supported the inclusion of chromium-6 cited two
primary reasons for its inclusion in UCMR 3:
Generating national occurrence data in UCMR 3 will avoid
potential delays in any possible regulatory action;
Monitoring for both total chromium and chromium-6 may
allow for determining a relationship between the two species, allowing
for possible use of total chromium monitoring, which is less costly and
has better holding time requirements, as a surrogate for chromium-6
monitoring.
While generally supporting chromium-6 monitoring in UCMR 3, some
commenters expressed concern about the current analytical method. The
concerns included procedural issues (e.g., field filtration,
preservation and holding time compliance), interferences concerns
(e.g., sensitivity and species interconversion prior to sample
analysis), the need for round-robin testing of the method laboratory
capacity, and the need to determine a lowest concentration minimum
reporting level (LCMRL) and MRL for chromium-6. Extensive research by
EPA, with support from instrument manufacturers and commercial
laboratories, addressed the issues of interferences, sensitivity and
analyte preservation. EPA Method 218.7 has undergone peer review, and
multi-laboratory LCMRL and MRL determinations have been completed
(USEPA, 2011b; USEPA, 2006).
Because UCMR is limited by statute to 30 unregulated contaminants,
commenters offered a variety of suggestions for which analyte to remove
to accommodate chromium-6. Suggestions included dropping one of the
metals, hormones, PFCs, or VOCs. Other suggestions included removing
``the contaminant with the least chance of being detected during
monitoring.'' EPA selected sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene, non-
carcinogenic VOCs, for removal after considering data submitted by
States that indicated very low occurrence rates. EPA also considered
the fact that the currently available health reference levels, 10.3
[mu]g/L and 5.83 [mu]g/L, respectively, are well above the reported
levels of occurrence in these data (USEPA, 2012c).
5. Viruses and Related Methods
a. This Rule
EPA is finalizing the requirement for monitoring of the viruses as
proposed. This rule requires monitoring for enterovirus and norovirus
in UCMR 3 via Pre-Screen Testing of selected undisinfected ground water
systems located in karst or fractured bedrock. The monitoring will
include 800 PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer customers, including CWSs, and
non-transient and transient non-community water systems. Monitoring
will also include sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total
coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores).
This monitoring will obtain information concerning the occurrence of
enterovirus and norovirus for further evaluation and provide EPA with a
better understanding of the co-occurrence of pathogen indicators and
viruses.
Enteroviruses will be monitored using one method that has two
detection assays. The first is a cell culture assay also used in the
Information Collection Rule survey conducted by EPA (61 FR 24353, May
14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)), with one change; the Virosorb 1-MDS filter
will be replaced by the NanoCeram[supreg] filter, which will
significantly reduce sampling cost. The NanoCeram[supreg] filter has
proven to be as effective as Virosorb 1-MDS filter for the recovery of
enteroviruses (Karim et al., 2009) and noroviruses (Gibbons et al.,
2010). The second assay is quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(qPCR) based, and detects the viral nucleic acid. Noroviruses will only
be monitored using qPCR, as there is no cell culture method available.
Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR will be performed per the
protocol in Lambertini et al., (2008). The qPCR primers and probe for
genogroup I norovirus will be as referenced in Jothikumar et al.,
(2005), while genogroup II Norovirus primers and probe will be as
referenced in Ando et al., (1995). Primers and probe referenced in De
Leon et al., (1990) and Monpoeho et al., (2000) will be used for
enterovirus qPCR.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters expressed concern about using Method 1615 for
monitoring viruses because it has not undergone multi-laboratory
validation. EPA notes, however, that individual elements of the method
have been used by many researchers worldwide, and the culture assay is,
with the exception of a new filter, identical to the Information
Collection Rule validated method (FR 24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA,
1996)). The complete method is published and has undergone thorough
peer review as per protocols established by EPA's National Exposure
Research Laboratory and consistent with ``The Handbook for Preparing
ORD Reports'' (USEPA, 1995). The method has undergone validation at
EPA's laboratory, has built in quality controls for PCR inhibition and
has positive and negative controls to identify false negative and
positive assays. Results from the analysis of initial and ongoing
positive and negative proficiency testing (PT) samples will ensure the
ability of analysts to perform the method.
Several commenters questioned EPA's use of Borchardt's (2008) data
as the basis for including viruses in UCMR 3,
[[Page 26083]]
since that work has not been published or undergone peer review. In his
study, Borchardt sampled wells from 14 communities in Wisconsin for the
presence of enteroviruses and noroviruses. The initial enteric virus
RT-qPCR assay results are published in a peer reviewed journal (Hunt et
al., 2010). Borchardt's work showed a statistically significant
correlation between viral qPCR and self-reported AGI (acute
gastrointestinal illness) in the population served. Borchardt's work is
also one of the very few studies to assess presence of enteric viruses
in undisinfected ground water systems. EPA expects that complete
results from Borchardt's work will be published in a peer reviewed
journal in the near future. The study results have also been presented
at numerous scientific conferences as well as in testimony to the
Wisconsin State Senate. A project advisory committee comprised of
epidemiologists from the University of California, Berkeley, Michigan
State University and the University of Washington provided additional
peer review comments during the study planning and data analysis
stages.
A few commenters expressed concerns as to whether a survey of 800
undisinfected ground water systems in a sensitive hydrogeology would be
nationally representative, noting that only specific geologic regions
within the country would be included in the survey. While EPA
acknowledges that the 800 undisinfected ground water systems are only a
small subset of the total number of systems in the country, the
selection of 800 PWSs was statistically derived to be nationally
representative of those with sensitive hydrogeology.
EPA also received comments regarding how the agency would use data
obtained from a focused and limited occurrence survey, at highly
vulnerable and susceptible systems, to provide meaningful data to judge
nationwide occurrence and to support regulatory determination. EPA
notes that results will provide an understanding of the exposure risks
in populations potentially served by a large number of undisinfected
systems in karst aquifers nationally. Lastly, some comments addressed
the current information on virus-indicator correlation, suggesting that
the correlations are weak. EPA notes that most virus-indicator
correlation studies have been performed in disinfected systems, not
undisinfected ground water systems. EPA also notes that the use of
multiple indicators in looking at the correlation will make this
monitoring more useful.
6. Perfluorinated Compounds and Related Methods
a. This Rule
EPA is finalizing the requirement for monitoring the perfluorinated
compounds (PFCs) as proposed: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFBS.
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received public comments related to several issues with EPA
Method 537, used to measure PFCs. These included: The potential for
laboratory contamination; concerns that the MRLs developed for the PFCs
may be too low or too high; and concerns about the media used to
extract the contaminants. EPA successfully tested this method via a
multi-laboratory validation and conducted a thorough peer-review
process prior to the UCMR 3 proposal. Since then, the method has also
been effectively used at additional laboratories. Contamination was not
an issue at these laboratories, and they were able to meet the proposed
MRLs. While particular laboratories may be able to meet MRLs lower than
those proposed, the selected MRLs reflect those achievable by the
national array of laboratories that support the program. Regarding the
extraction media, the method relies on a very common sorbent (styrene
divinylbenzene) that is available from a number of vendors and yields
high-quality data.
E. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring?
1. This Rule
All laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1 and List 2
contaminants must receive EPA approval to perform those analyses.
Laboratories seeking approval are required to provide EPA with data
that demonstrate their successful completion of an initial
demonstration of capability (IDC) as outlined in each method, verify
successful method performance at the MRLs as specified in this action,
and successfully participate in an EPA Proficiency Testing (PT) program
for the analytes of interest. On-site audits of candidate laboratories
may be conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory approval program are
contained in the technical manual titled: ``UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval
Requirements and Information Document'' (USEPA, 2012d). This document
will be available on the electronic docket at www.regulations.gov and
will be provided to laboratories that register for the laboratory
approval program. In addition, EPA may supply analytical reference
standards of known concentrations for select analytes to participating/
approved laboratories, where such standards are not readily available
through commercial sources.
Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) analyses for viruses and related
pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage,
Enterococci, and aerobic spores) are organized and paid for by EPA
through direct contracts with microbial laboratories. These
laboratories are not required to go through the same formal laboratory
approval process as the Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey
laboratories; however, they are subject to an analogous laboratory
approval process as part of their direct contracts with EPA.
a. Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3
The UCMR 3 laboratory approval program is similar to the approval
program under UCMR 1 and 2. It is designed to assess and confirm the
capability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods listed
in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of this final rule. It will assess
whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory
performance and data reporting criteria described in this action. This
evaluation program is voluntary in that it only applies to laboratories
intending to analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, EPA requires water
systems to use UCMR 3 approved laboratories when conducting monitoring
for those analytes listed in Table 1 of Sec. 141.40(a)(3) of this
final rule. A list of laboratories approved for UCMR 3 monitoring is
posted to EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/laboratories.cfm. Laboratories are encouraged to apply
for UCMR 3 approvals as early as possible, as schedules for large PWS
sampling will be completed soon after the final rule is promulgated.
The steps for the laboratory approval process are listed in the
following paragraphs, b through f.
b. Request To Participate
Laboratories must contact EPA and request to participate in the
UCMR 3 laboratory approval program. Laboratories must send their
request to: UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical
Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati,
OH 45268; or email at: [email protected]. EPA began
accepting requests for registration for the List 1 (Assessment
Monitoring) and List 2 (Screening Survey) methods on March 03, 2011.
[[Page 26084]]
The final opportunity for a laboratory to request the necessary
registration forms is August 1, 2012.
c. Registration
Each laboratory that wishes to participate in UCMR 3 monitoring
must complete a registration form. Registration information includes
the following: laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address,
contact name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 3
methods for which the laboratory is seeking approval. The registration
step provides EPA with the necessary contact information and ensures
that each laboratory receives a customized application package of
materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to use.
d. Application Package
When EPA receives the registration information, a customized
application package will be emailed to the laboratory for completion.
Information requested in the application includes the following: IDC
data, including precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies;
information regarding analytical equipment; proof of current drinking
water laboratory certification (for any currently regulated chemical);
and example chromatograms for each method under review.
The laboratory must post UCMR 3 monitoring results (on behalf of
its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system as a
condition of maintaining EPA approval.
e. EPA Review of Application Package
EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request
follow-up information. The laboratory must satisfactorily complete this
portion of the process before they can participate in the UCMR 3 PT
program.
f. Proficiency Testing (PT)
A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an
analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being
tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a
laboratory must meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of a
UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for each method for which the laboratory is seeking
approval. Initial laboratory approval is contingent upon successful
completion of a PT study. EPA will offer two to four opportunities for
a laboratory to successfully analyze UCMR 3 PT samples. Two of these
studies were conducted prior to the publication of this final rule and
at least one study will be conducted after publication of the final
rule. Under this approach laboratories could complete their portion of
the laboratory approval process prior to publication of this final
rule, and therefore receive their approval immediately following the
publication of this final rule. Alternatively, laboratories could wait
until this final rule is published before completing the required
laboratory approval analyses. A laboratory must pass one of the PT
studies for each analytical method for which they are requesting
approval. Laboratories applying for UCMR 3 approval and laboratories
conducting UCMR 3 analyses may be subject to on-site laboratory audits.
No PT studies will be conducted after the start of monitoring; however,
laboratory audits will be ongoing throughout the entire monitoring
period of 2013-2015. Continued laboratory approval is contingent upon
successful participation in any audits conducted by EPA.
g. Written EPA Approval
After laboratories successfully complete steps ``b'' through ``f''
of the laboratory approval process, EPA will send the laboratory a
letter listing the method(s) for which approval is granted.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Three (3) commenters suggested that EPA modify the requirements for
PT samples in UCMR 3 by including a round of PT samples during the UCMR
3 monitoring period in addition to the initial round of PT samples
conducted prior to monitoring. Instead of requiring laboratories to
conduct ongoing PT samples, EPA will conduct ongoing laboratory audits
similar to the process under UCMR 2. Ongoing laboratory audits will
allow EPA to evaluate each laboratory's analytical processes for all
aspects of sample receipt, storage, processing, analysis and reporting
of routine samples. This will provide a better mechanism, compared to
an additional PT study, for uncovering any potential data issues and
ensuring that laboratories meet the quality requirements.
F. How were minimum reporting levels determined?
1. This Rule
Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) and Minimum
Reporting Levels (MRLs) for each analyte were determined through an EPA
LCMRL study assessing the data from multiple laboratories prior to
publication of the UCMR 3 proposal. The LCMRL is defined as the lowest
spiking concentration at which recovery of between 50 and 150% is
expected 99% of the time by a single analyst.
The LCMRL is estimated using advanced statistical procedures that
have been incorporated into an LCMRL calculator tool that is available
on EPA's Web site (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The tool estimates a probability
distribution for spike recovery as a function of spiking concentration.
MRL
EPA revised the definition of the MRL used in UCMR 2 (72 FR 367,
January 4, 2007 (USEPA, 2007)). The revised definition reflects
improvements in the statistical procedures for determining the LCMRL
and MRL. These improvements were implemented by EPA to make the models
more robust, i.e., so that the models can accommodate a wider range of
observed LCMRL data sets (USEPA, 2010f). The MRL for an analyte
measured by a specified analytical method is designed to be an estimate
of an LCMRL that is achievable, with 95% confidence, by a capable
analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the time. Such a demonstration of
ability to reliably make quality measurements at the MRL is intended to
achieve high quality measurements across the nation's laboratories.
In UCMR 3, EPA estimated the MRL for an analyte/method by obtaining
data from several laboratories performing corresponding LCMRL studies.
These data were used to construct an approximation to the distribution
that would result from picking at random a laboratory/analyst
proficient in performing the analytical method and having them perform
an LCMRL study and compute an LCMRL estimate. The strategy for
computing the MRL is two-fold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a
distribution for repeated LCMRL determinations by the same laboratory/
analyst is estimated by generating a large number of simulated values.
Second, these values are combined to create an estimated overall
distribution. If a result from one of the laboratories is significantly
higher than that of other laboratories, this value would be down-
weighted using a robust weight function. The resulting weighted values
are used to construct a probability distribution from which the MRL is
computed as the 95th percentile.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters remarked on the complexity of the procedures for
determining the LCMRL and the MRL. These commenters were concerned
[[Page 26085]]
about the amount of time and effort needed to calculate LCMRLs and
MRLs. Some suggested that as an alternative, EPA use the procedure
developed for consideration by the Clean Water Act as part of the
Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation. As a point of
clarification, EPA notes that laboratories that participate in UCMR 3
do not need to use the LCMRL and MRL procedures. Instead, laboratories
that participate in UCMR 3 will be required to demonstrate their
ability to meet the already-established UCMR 3 analyte MRLs by
analyzing reagent water samples spiked at or below the established UCMR
3 MRLs. This initial demonstration of capability (IDC) requirement, as
described in EPA's ``UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and
Information Document,'' is no more complex than determining a Method
Detection Limit (MDL) (USEPA, 2012d).
A diverse selection of laboratories representing different sizes,
experience and business status were selected to participate in the EPA
LCMRL studies (as described previously in this section). For
transparency, EPA will provide summary tables showing all LCMRL results
for UCMR 3 in the docket (USEPA, 2012d).
With regard to comments that the MRLs are being set well below
health reference levels (HRLs) in certain cases, EPA believes that this
is appropriate because new health effects data may become available in
the future that result in lower HRLs.
G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting requirements?
1. General Reporting Requirements/SDWARS
a. This Rule
Under this rule, EPA is committed to pre-populating the inventory
and monitoring data in the reporting system (Safe Drinking Water
Accession and Review System (SDWARS)), using data from UCMR 2 and
SDWIS/Fed information. For PWSs subject to UCMR 3 that have data in
SDWARS from UCMR 2, EPA will transfer data to ``SDWARS 3'' (i.e., the
SDWARS update associated with UCMR 3). For water systems that are new
to UCMR, EPA will pull the available information from SDWIS/Fed and
coordinate with States and EPA Regions for their input where possible.
EPA has loaded the available information into SDWARS 3 prior to the
publication of this final rule. PWSs will have until October 1, 2012,
to update, edit, or change their information or monitoring schedule in
SDWARS 3 (see Section III.G.4 for further discussion of reporting
deadlines).
b. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters expressed concern over possible inefficiencies
related to data entry into SDWARS, including concern over duplication
of past efforts (e.g., having to re-enter information for each sample
point for each sampling event) and time spent identifying
representative sampling locations at both the EPTDS and DSMRT for UCMR
2. Commenters further noted it would be very helpful if elements that
are duplicated for each sample would be automatically pre-filled in
each field once the information was entered the first time. As noted,
for UCMR 3, EPA plans to preload as much inventory to SDWARS as
possible and is taking commenter suggestions into consideration in its
design updates to SDWARS. The pre-loaded data will include
representative sampling locations previously identified as the EPTDS
and DSMRT locations. PWSs will be asked to verify their inventory in
SDWARS and large systems may be required to revise this information
once their ground water representative monitoring plan has been
approved, depending on the level of their State's involvement. See
Section III.G.4 for discussion of reporting deadlines.
2. Sample Location and Inventory Information (Zip Codes)
a. This Rule
This final rule establishes a requirement for reporting zip codes
associated with all PWS customers. EPA had proposed the reporting of
sampling point U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes and the zip codes of all
customers served by a given sampling point (as part of the reporting
associated with Data Element 4--Sampling Point Identification Code).
Obtaining the zip code of the sampling point was intended to assist
with future vulnerability assessments. Zip codes that tie populations
served to each sampling point were intended to assist with future
occurrence and exposure analyses. However, based on stakeholder
concerns about the burden associated with reporting this information
and concerns about the usefulness of having the zip code of the
sampling point, EPA revised the rule language to establish a
requirement of only reporting zip codes for customers served by the
PWS. These reporting specifications are now established in Sec. Sec.
141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1) for large and small systems, respectively. EPA
believes that required reporting of customer zip codes will provide EPA
with useful information for future occurrence analyses.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Eight (8) comments were received regarding the proposed zip code
reporting requirements. Most commenters believed that reporting the zip
code for each sampling point location would not provide EPA with the
information necessary to make future correlations between water quality
and the areas served by the water being distributed. After considering
public comments, EPA has revised the reporting requirement to only
include the zip codes served by the PWS.
3. Disinfectant Type Specifications
a. This Rule
EPA is changing Data Element 6, in Table 1 of 141.35(e). Under UCMR
2, this data element was established to provide information on
``Disinfectant Residual Type'' as it related to monitoring for
nitrosamines (part of UCMR 2 Screening Survey monitoring). EPA is
modifying the definition of this data element to account for changes to
the analyte and monitoring specifications between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3.
This revised definition lists additional disinfectant types to provide
more specific information on the sources and types of disinfectant
schemes that may lead to chlorate formation/occurrence in drinking
water.
b. Summary of Major Comments
While commenters were supportive of the collection of these data,
several commenters noted that the requirement for reporting this data
element was unclear. Some commenters noted that PWSs frequently use
multiple disinfectants and reporting only one of those would provide an
inaccurate assessment of disinfectants being used. Others noted that
EPA needed to make sure that PWSs indicate whether their hypochlorite
solution was generated on or off site (onsite: Essentially no storage
of stock solution will be needed; offsite: The storage of stock
solution will be needed).
EPA agrees that the presentation of the requirements warranted
clarification and has revised the list of disinfectants. EPA will
clearly indicate in the data reporting system (SDWARS) that PWSs should
identify all of the disinfectants used to treat the water.
4. Reporting Schedule
a. This Rule
To help ensure that monitoring and reporting are conducted as
scheduled,
[[Page 26086]]
UCMR 3 specifies several deadlines related to initial reporting of
inventory and scheduling information, as well as reporting of
monitoring data. Several deadlines were newly proposed for UCMR 3
(i.e., not used for UCMR 1 or UCMR 2) and finalized in this rule, and
some are revised in this final rule to ensure that UCMR 3 is
implemented as scheduled. These deadlines are being established to
allow EPA enough time to review and process the information, and
complete the planning process for UCMR 3 monitoring to begin on January
1, 2013. Changes in deadlines only affect large systems. There are no
changes to small system reporting schedules. The schedule changes that
are finalized in this rule include:
Inventory and Scheduling: Large systems that are subject
to UCMR 3 must report their inventory and sampling location information
(141.35(c)(2)), and any proposed changes to their monitoring schedule
(141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40(a)(4)(i)) no later than October 1, 2012. As
noted, EPA has loaded existing information into SDWARS 3 prior to the
publication of this final rule. PWSs will have until October 1, 2012,
to update, edit or change their inventory and sample location
information or monitoring schedule in SDWARS 3.
Ground water representative monitoring plans: As described
in 141.35(c)(3), large systems that use ground water sources and that
have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring at
representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. For
systems that have existing approved representative monitoring plans,
their approved sampling location information will be pre-loaded into
SDWARS and systems must review and confirm, or update this information
by October 1, 2012. This rule establishes a deadline of August 1, 2012,
for submitting a new ground water representative plan to be reviewed by
the State or EPA.
Monitoring data: This rule re-establishes two deadlines
related to reporting of monitoring data: Large systems must require
their laboratories to post data to SDWARS within 120 days of sample
collection; and large systems must review, approve and submit the data
to their State and EPA within 60 days of when the laboratory posts the
data. These time frames are specified in 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and
141.40(a)(5)(vi).
b. Summary of Major Comments
Five (5) comments were received on the reduced laboratory reporting
time frame. Most commenters did not support the 60-day proposed time
frame for laboratories to post data to SDWARS and expressed several
concerns: that laboratories may see increased workload due to
additional monitoring; that UCMR 3 methods are not in common use and
are very sensitive, so greater validation of results may be required;
and that field blank analysis may be required for some methods,
resulting in longer turnaround times for sampling results. Commenters
did not believe that the reduced reporting time frame would increase
compliance with monitoring schedules. Seven comments were also received
regarding the 30-day proposed time frame for large PWSs to review and
approve their data. The majority of the commenters requested the time
frame be returned to the 60-day period used under UCMR 1 and 2.
Commenters believe the shortened time frame would not give PWSs
sufficient time to conduct a full data review and that schedule
coordination among multiple staff would be difficult. After considering
the public comments, EPA returned the laboratory reporting time frame
to 120 days after sample collection (same as earlier UCMRs) and
returned the PWS reporting time frame to 60 days after laboratory
posting data (same as earlier UCMRs).
IV. State and Tribal Participation
A. Partnership Agreements
1. This Rule
Under UCMR 3, States may continue to have a role in rule
implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Because specific
activities for individual States are identified and established through
the PAs, not through rule language, this rule does not contain
reference to PAs.
2. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received no comments regarding State participation in UCMR 3.
B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers
1. This Rule
This rule retains the UCMR 1 and 2 language that, consistent with
SDWA, allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add
contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the
UCMR 1 and 2 language that allows States to waive monitoring
requirements with EPA approval and under very limited conditions.
2. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received no comments regarding the governor's petition or
state-wide waiver allowances of UCMR 3.
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
In this rule, EPA finalizes a new set of contaminants for
monitoring in the third five-year UCMR monitoring period. UCMR 3 also
incorporates modifications to improve the rule design. UCMR 3
Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from
January 2013 through December 2015 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The
800 small systems will be randomly selected for List 1 monitoring. The
UCMR 3 Screening Survey (for List 2 contaminants) will be conducted
from January 2013 through December 2015 by all systems serving a
population of greater than 100,000 people, a nationally representative
set of 320 systems serving between 10,001 and 100,000 people, and a
nationally representative set of 480 systems serving fewer than 10,000
people. The nationally representative sets of 320 and 480 systems will
both be randomly selected for List 2 monitoring. The Pre-Screen Testing
for List 3 contaminants will also be conducted from January 2013
through December 2015 in 800 undisinfected ground water systems serving
1,000 or fewer persons. No small system will be selected for more than
one UCMR 3 monitoring list.
It is assumed for this cost estimate that one-third of systems will
monitor during each of the three monitoring years. Labor costs pertain
to systems, States, and EPA. They include activities such as reading
the regulation, notifying systems selected to participate, training
water system staff on sample collection procedures, sample collection,
including travel time to collect samples, data review, reporting, and
record keeping. Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and
by large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to
laboratories for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory
analyses.
In this rule, EPA specifies seven EPA-developed analytical methods
and four equivalent consensus organization developed methods to monitor
for 27 unregulated chemical contaminants, two viruses, and total
chromium. While this preamble also describes the analytical methods
that will be used for virus monitoring, the rule does not address these
methods. Laboratory approval for virus monitoring is not addressed
since all of the analyses for the two viruses will be conducted in
laboratories under EPA contract and at EPA's expense. Estimated system
and EPA costs are based on the analytical costs for all UCMR 3 methods.
With the
[[Page 26087]]
exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1, these methods are comparatively
new and will not coincide with other compliance monitoring (i.e., no
cost savings for concurrent monitoring can be realized).
Laboratory analysis and shipping of samples account for
approximately 82% of the total national cost for UCMR 3 implementation.
These costs are calculated as follows: the number of systems,
multiplied by the number of sampling locations, multiplied by the
sampling frequency, multiplied by the unit cost of laboratory analysis.
Under UCMR 3, for List 1 Assessment Monitoring and List 2 Screening
Survey, surface water (and ground water under the direct influence of
surface water (GWUDI)) sampling points will be monitored four times
during the applicable year of monitoring, and ground water sample
points will be monitored twice during the applicable year of
monitoring. Systems will monitor for the metals--cobalt, molybdenum,
vanadium, strontium, chromium-6, and total chromium--as well as
chlorate, at their EPTDS sampling locations and at one distribution
system sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT). Pre-
Screen Testing systems will monitor two times during the three year
monitoring period (2013 through 2015) at their EPTDS.
Following publication of the proposed rule and EPA's initial cost
and burden estimates, EPA received several cost-related public
comments. Several suggested that EPA's estimates of cost and burden
(e.g., laboratory and estimated labor burden) to PWSs were too low. EPA
estimates of laboratory fees are based on consultations with commercial
drinking water laboratories and a review of the costs of similar
analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the
analytical method cost estimates. EPA approached four commercial
drinking water laboratories and requested pricing estimates for UCMR 3
methods, including the cost of field blanks for methods 524.3 (VOCs),
537 (PFCs), and 539 (hormones). EPA averaged the estimates from the
four laboratories and updated the cost figures, which resulted in
increased cost estimates for some methods.
With respect to per-system burden estimates, EPA notes that all
estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface water
systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower sampling
burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers of sampling points
that would have greater labor burden. Moreover, a system's burden is
primarily incurred during its one year of required UCMR monitoring
(between January 2013 and December 2015). However, in compliance with
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), these cost and burden estimates are presented as an average over
the applicable three-year information collection request (ICR) period
(2012-2014). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will
have the lowest burden not only because they generally have fewer
sampling locations, but also because these systems will receive
substantial direct assistance from EPA and/or their State.
The total cost of Assessment Monitoring analyses is estimated at
$1,085 per sample set. The total cost of the single Screening Survey
method is estimated at $418 per sample set. Field blank analyses costs
are further described in ``Information Collection Request for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)'' (USEPA,
2012a). The cost to EPA of the Pre-Screen analyses for viruses and
related pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli,
bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic spores) is estimated at $1,880
per sample set. Shipping estimates are added to the calculated costs to
derive the total direct analytical non-labor costs. Estimated shipping
costs were based on the average cost of shipping a 25-pound package.
In preparing the UCMR 3 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and
data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program
ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per
system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur only labor
costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 3 implementation.
State costs were estimated using the relevant modules of the State
Resource Model that was developed by the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to
help States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to
account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR. Because
State participation is voluntary, level of effort will vary across
States and depend on their individual agreements with EPA.
Over the UCMR implementation period of 2012-2016, EPA estimates
that nationwide, the annual cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $17.45
million, of which water systems and States will pay approximately $13.3
million; and EPA will pay $4.14 million (most of which is associated
with small system monitoring). These total estimated annual costs
(labor and non-labor) are incurred as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. annual cost. all
Respondent respondents (2012-2016)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems (25-10,000), including labor $0.066 m
only, non-labor costs paid for by EPA.........
Large Systems (10,001-100,000), including labor 9.55 m
and non-labor costs...........................
Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), 2.94 m
including labor and non-labor costs...........
States, including labor costs related to 0.75 m
implementation coordination...................
EPA, including labor for implementation, non- 4.14 m
labor for small system testing................
------------------------
Average Annual National Total \1\.......... 17.45 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average Annual National Total of $17.45 million is based on
rounding.
Over the period of 2012-2016, EPA estimates that nationwide, the
total cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $87 million, of which water
systems and States will pay approximately $66 million and EPA will pay
$21 million.
Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the ICR amendment prepared for this final rule (Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) number 2040--NEW), which presents
estimated cost and burden for the 2012-2014 period (USEPA, 2012a).
Estimates of costs over the entire five-year UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016
are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its
amendment may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this final
rule
[[Page 26088]]
under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR. 3821, January 21, 2011, this action is a
``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
``Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3)'' (USEPA, 2012a). A copy of the analysis
is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized in Section V of the preamble of this final rule.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
The information collected under this final rule fulfills the
statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in
1996. The data collected will describe the source of the water,
location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The
concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated in
conjunction with health effects information and will be considered for
future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not
subject to confidentiality protection.
The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are
for the implementation assumptions described in Section V. Cost and
Benefits of the Rule. Respondents to the UCMR 3 will include 2,080
small water systems (800 for Assessment Monitoring, 480 for Screening
Survey, and 800 for Pre-Screen Testing), the 4,215 large PWSs (those
serving more than 10,000 people), and the 56 States and Primacy
agencies (6,351 total respondents). The frequency of response varies
across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory
analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations.
For cost estimates, it is assumed that systems will conduct sampling
evenly across January 2013 through December 2015 (i.e., one-third of
systems in each of the 3 consecutive 12-month periods). Because the
applicable ICR period is 2012-2014, the third year of monitoring
activity (i.e., January through December of 2015) is not captured in
the current ICR estimates.
The burden and cost estimates presented in this section represent
average costs. In some cases, the costs are presented as an annual
average. Average burden or cost per system was derived by calculating
total costs, and dividing by the total number of systems expected to
monitor during the ICR years of 2012-2014. Average annual burden or
cost per system was derived by summing total costs (or burden),
dividing by the number of systems expected to monitor during the ICR
years of 2012-2014, and then dividing by three years. The total costs
and the annual average costs over the ICR years of 2012-2014 are
presented in Exhibit 7. Total and annual average costs for the entire
5-year UCMR 3 period can be found in the ICR for UCMR 3, available in
the docket for this final rule.
Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for
UCMR 3 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 times per system (i.e.,
number of responses per system) across the three-year ICR period of
2012-2014. The average burden per response for small systems is
estimated to be 3.8 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to
100,000 people) and very large systems (those serving more than 100,000
people) will sample and report an average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per
system, respectively, across the three-year ICR period of 2012-2014.
The average burden per response for large and very large systems is
estimated to be 9.2 and 10.2 hours, respectively. States are assumed to
have an average of 1.0 response per year (3.0 responses per State
across the three-year ICR period of 2012-2014), related to coordination
with EPA and systems, with an average burden per response of 233 hours.
In aggregate, during the ICR period of 2012-2014, the average response
(e.g., responses from systems and States) is associated with a burden
of 11.6 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $4,218 per response.
Exhibit 7 presents respondent burden and cost estimates for the ICR
period of 2012-2014.
Exhibit 7--UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period
[2012-2014]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very large
Burden (hours)/cost (dollars) Small systems Large systems systems States National average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-Year Total per Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of Responses per Respondent................... 1.8 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.5
Labor Cost per Respondent..................................... $160 $775 $1,437 $41,975 $1,160
Non-Labor Cost per Respondent................................. $0 $11,785 $34,181 $0 $9,237
Total Cost (Labor plus Non-Labor)............................. $160 $12,560 $35,619 $41,975 $10,397
Total Cost per Response....................................... $89 $4,677 $9,704 $13,992 $4,218
Total Burden per Respondent (hr).............................. 6.9 24.8 37.5 700.1 28.7
Total Burden per Response (hr)................................ 3.8 9.24 10.2 233.4 11.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual per Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. of Responses per Respondent.................... 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.8
Labor Cost per Respondent..................................... $53 $258 $479 $13,992 $387
Non-Labor Cost per Respondent................................. $0 $3,928 $11,394 $0 $3,079
Avg. Cost (Labor plus Non-Labor).............................. $53 $4,187 $11,873 $13,992 $3,466
Avg. Cost per Response........................................ $30 $1,559 $3,235 $4,664 $1,406
Avg. Burden per Respondent (hr)............................... 2.3 8.3 12.5 233.4 9.6
[[Page 26089]]
Avg. Burden per Response (hr)................................. 1.3 3.1 3.4 61.3 3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average per respondent burden hours and costs per year for the
ICR period of 2012-2014 are: small systems--2.3 hour burden at $53 for
labor; large systems--8.3 hours at $258 for labor, and $3,928 for
analytical costs; very large systems--12.5 hours at $479 for labor, and
$11,394 for analytical costs; and States--233.4 hours at $13,992 for
labor. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Exhibit 8 shows the annual and total national cost and burden for
UCMR 3 implementation over the ICR period of 2012-2014.
Exhibit 8--UCMR 3 Annual National Cost and Burden
[2012-2014]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (in millions) 2012 2013 2014 Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small System Costs............................................ $0 $0.11 $0.11 $0.22
Large System Costs............................................ 0 15.92 15.92 31.84
Very Large System Costs....................................... 0 4.90 4.90 9.81
State Costs................................................... 0.33 1.0 1.0 2.4
EPA Costs..................................................... 0.92 6.63 6.57 14.12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost................................................ 1.26 28.55 28.53 58.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden (thousands of hours) for All Responses 2012 2013 2014 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems................................................... 0 4.8 4.8 9.5
Large Systems................................................... 0 31.5 31.5 62.9
Very Large Systems.............................................. 0 5.2 5.2 10.3
States.......................................................... 13.3 13.6 12.2 39.2
EPA............................................................. 5.7 11.4 11.4 28.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden................................................ 19.1 66.5 65.1 150.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to
use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which
are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or
fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as
requiring special consideration with respect to small system
flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February
13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the
SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer
Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA,
1998b)). Consistent with that Final Rule, the alternative definition
has been applied to this regulation.
After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this rule are PWSs serving 10,000 or
fewer people. EPA has determined that the small entities subject to the
requirements of this rule are a subset of the small PWSs (those serving
10,000 or fewer people). The agency has determined that 2,080 small
PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen
[[Page 26090]]
Testing), or approximately 3% of small systems, will experience an
impact of no more than 0.4% of revenues; the remainder of small systems
will not be impacted.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To ensure that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA will assume all costs for analyses of the
samples and for shipping the samples from these systems to the
laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set
aside $2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) with
its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this
provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be
limited to the labor hours associated with 2,080 small systems
assisting EPA in collecting UCMR samples and preparing them for
shipping.
The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized
in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA
analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publicly-owned water
systems separately due to the different economic characteristics of
these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit
goals. For both publicly- and privately-owned systems, EPA used the
``revenue test,'' which compares annual system costs attributed to the
rule to the system's annual revenues. Median revenue data from the 2006
Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey
Methodology (http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf) were used for public and private water
systems. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of
participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly-
and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated
distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership
type, source water, and system size, is presented in Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privately-
System size (number of people served) Publicly-owned owned Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................................... 134 402 536
501 to 3,300.................................................... 548 208 757
3,301 to 10,000................................................. 286 66 352
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal GW................................................. 968 677 1,645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water (and GWUDI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................................... 7 9 16
501 to 3,300.................................................... 98 35 133
3,301 to 10,000................................................. 222 64 286
Subtotal SW..................................................... 327 108 435
-----------------------------------------------
Total of Small Water Systems................................ 1,295 785 2,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this final rule is
as follows: for the 2,080 small water systems that will be affected,
the average annual costs for complying with this rule represent 0.4% of
system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for ground water
systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.40% of its median revenue).
Exhibit 10 presents the annual costs to small systems and to EPA for
the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of system
participation for each year of the UCMR 3 program.
Exhibit 10--EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Small System $0 $5,407,233........... $5,407,233........... $5,407,233........... $0 $16,221,698
Program (including Assessment
Monitoring, Screening Survey, and
Pre-Screen Testing).
Costs to Small Systems including 0 $110,720............. 110,720.............. 110,720.............. 0 332,160
Assessment Monitoring, Screening
Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing.
Total Costs to EPA and Small 0 $5,517,953........... 5,517,953............ 5,517,953............ 0 16,553,858
Systems for UCMR 3:.
System Monitoring Activity
Timeline: \1\
Assessment Monitoring.......... .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 800
Screening Survey............... .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 480
[[Page 26091]]
Pre-Screen Testing............. .............. \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... \1/3\ PWSs Sample.... .............. 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total number of systems is 2,080. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study.
System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about
their requirements, training staff on requirements, monitoring,
including travel time needed to collect samples, reporting, and record
keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five-year UCMR
3 implementation period of 2012-2016 is estimated to be 1.4 hours at
$32 per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than
or equal to 0.40% of system revenues. As required by SDWA, the agency
specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small
entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and
quality control for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the
entirety of the non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3 small system
monitoring, or 98% of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 11 and
12 present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test
for publicly- and privately-owned systems.
Exhibit 11--UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2012-2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual Average annual
System size (number of people served) systems hours per system cost per system Revenue test \1\
impacted (2012-2016) (2012-2016) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................ 27 1.14 $24.16 0.08
501 to 3,300......................... 110 1.24 27.67 0.02
3,301 to 10,000...................... 57 1.57 39.71 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................ 1 1.63 34.71 0.06
501 to 3,300......................... 20 1.69 37.74 0.02
3,301 to 10,000...................... 44 1.79 45.35 0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small
government entities (e.g., publicly-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual
revenue in each size category.
Exhibit 12--UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2012-2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual Average annual
System size (number of people served) systems hours per system cost per system Revenue Test\1\
impacted (2012-2016) (2012-2016) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................ 80 1.14 $24.16 0.40
501 to 3,300......................... 42 1.24 27.67 0.02
3,301 to 10,000...................... 13 1.57 39.74 0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................ 2 1.63 34.71 0.10
501 to 3,300......................... 7 1.69 37.74 0.01
3,301 to 10,000...................... 13 1.79 45.35 0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private
entities (e.g., privately-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each
size category.
EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed
action on small systems. No comments were received.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Total annual costs of this final rule (across the implementation period
of 2012-2016), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the private
sector, are estimated to be $17.45 million, of which EPA will pay $4.14
million, or approximately 24%. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted
previously, the agency expects to pay for the reasonable costs of
sample analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated
by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are
labor costs attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them
for shipment
[[Page 26092]]
to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are minimal.
They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of UMRA Section 203.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The cost to State and local
governments is minimal and the rule does not preempt State law. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As described previously,
this final rule requires monitoring by all large systems (i.e., those
serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and all very large systems (i.e.,
those serving greater than 100,000 people); 17 Tribal water systems
have been identified as large systems based on information in the
SDWIS/Fed water system inventory. EPA estimates the average annual cost
to each of these large systems, over the five-year rule period, to be
less than $2,512 (total cost of about $12,560 per system during the
five-year rule period). This cost is based on a labor component
(associated with the collection of samples) and a non-labor component
(associated with shipping and laboratory fees) and represents less than
0.09% of average revenue/sales for large systems. UCMR also requires
monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small systems
(i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people). EPA estimates that
approximately one percent of small Tribal systems will be selected as
part of a nationally representative sample for Assessment Monitoring,
Screening Survey or Pre-Screen Testing. EPA estimates the average
annual cost to the small Tribal systems, over the five year rule period
to be $32 (total cost of about $160 per system over the five-year rule
period). Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a
sample and preparing it for shipping and represents 0.4% or less of
average revenue/sales for small systems. All other small system
expenses (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by
EPA.
EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing UCMR to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into
its development. In developing the original UCMR rule, EPA held
stakeholder meetings and prepared background information for
stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder
documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems
organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian
Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were
consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the
statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs. Tribes
raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally representative
sample of small systems, particularly the manner in which Tribal
systems would be considered under the sample selection process. EPA
developed the sample frame for Tribal systems and Alaska Native water
systems in response to those concerns. EPA worked with the Tribes,
Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to determine how to classify
each Tribal system for consideration in the statistically-based
selection of the nationally representative sample of small systems. As
a result of those discussions, small PWSs located in Indian country in
each of the EPA Regions containing Indian country were evaluated as
part of a Tribal category that receives selection consideration
comparable to that of small systems outside of Indian country. Thus,
Tribal systems have the same probability of being selected as other
water systems in the stratified selection process that weighs systems
by water source and size class by population served. This final rule
maintains the basic program design of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to
build upon the structure of this cyclical program. As part of the
development of this rule, EPA held a public stakeholder meeting on
April 7, 2010. This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal
Register notice dated February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)).
Prior to the meeting, background materials and rule development
information were sent to specific stakeholders, including
representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water Association.
EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed
action from tribal officials. EPA received no comments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulation pursuant to EO 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. None of the final UCMR requirements
involve actions that use a significant amount of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use the methods developed by the agency as well as voluntary consensus
standards for the analysis of UCMR 3 contaminants. The agency conducted
a search of potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and
identified two major organizations
[[Page 26093]]
whose methods are acceptable for determinations under UCMR. These
organizations are Standard Methods (SM) and ASTM International. For
many of the parameters included in this final action, EPA was unable to
identify methods from voluntary consensus method organizations that
were appropriate for the monitoring required. However, EPA identified
acceptable consensus method organization standards for the analysis of
total chromium, vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, strontium and chlorate.
Therefore, EPA is approving analytical methods published by EPA, SM,
and ASTM International for these analytes.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. By seeking to identify
unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water
from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all
citizens, including minority and low-income populations using public
water supplies. UCMR uses a statistically-derived set of systems for
the nationally representative sample that is population-weighted within
each system size and source water category so that any PWS within a
category has an equivalent likelihood of selection. Additionally, EPA
is requiring that PWSs report all U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes in
their service area. This additional data element will be used in the
evaluation of UCMR 3 occurrence data and could potentially identify
areas that have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective June 1, 2012.
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water routinely engages
stakeholders in its regulatory activities for the purpose of providing
early input to regulation development. When designing and developing
the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held meetings for developing
the CCL, establishing the information requirements of the NCOD, and
selecting priority contaminants for UCMR monitoring. During the initial
development of the UCMR program, stakeholders including PWSs, States,
industry, and other organizations attended meetings to discuss the
UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were held specifically concerning UCMR
development. For a description of public involvement activities related
to the first UCMR (UCMR 1), please see the discussion in the September
17, 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 (USEPA,
1999b).
Specific to the development of UCMR 3, a stakeholder meeting was
held on April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 attendees,
representing State agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental groups,
and drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and
discussions included: Status of UCMR 2; rationale for developing the
new list of potential contaminants; analytical methods that could be
used in measuring these contaminants; sampling design; procedure for
determining LCMRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions
based on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2
(see USEPA, 2010b for presentation materials, and USEPA, 2010c for
meeting notes).
EPA requested public comment on the proposed rule (76 FR 11713,
March 3, 2011 (USEPA, 2011a)), and established a public docket, under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090. Each set of comments received in
response to this request was assigned an EPA Document ID (EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0090+unique four digit extension) and posted for public access on
regulations.gov. To view comments, search for the docket ID on the
regulations.gov homepage, then click the link to public submissions.
EPA received feedback on UCMR 3 from 53 commenters. Commenters
included: private citizens; local and State governments as well as U.S.
territories; industry and industry groups; drinking water systems and
organizations; and, non-governmental organizations, such as
environmental and health advocacy groups. An overview of key comments
received is included in Section III of this rule, and the complete
report of comments and full EPA responses can be found in the docket on
regulations.gov (USEPA, 2012b).
VIII. References
ATSDR. 2009. Draft Toxicological Profile for Vanadium. September
2009. Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=276&tid=50.
Ando, T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, DC Lewis, and R.I.
Glass. 1995. Detection and differentiation of antigenically distinct
small round-structured viruses (Norwalk-like viruses) by reverse
transcription-PCR and southern hybridization. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology. 33(1):64-71.
ASDWA. 2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate
Resources for State Drinking Water Programs--An Analysis of State
Drinking Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003.
ASTM D5673-10. 2010. Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Available for purchase
on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
ASTM D6581-08. 2008. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide,
Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion
Chromatography. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.
Bergmann, H. and S. Koparal. 2005. The formation of chlorine dioxide
in the electrochemical treatment of drinking water for disinfection.
Electrochimica Acta. 50:5218-5228.
Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1992. Occurrence of
chlorate in hypochlorite solutions used for drinking water
disinfection. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(8):1663-1665.
Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 1993. Sources of chlorate
ion in US drinking water. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 85(9):81-88.
[[Page 26094]]
Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And Health Trial for Enteric
Risks (WAHTER Study)--Part 1: Risk of Illness from Municipal
Groundwater Consumption. EPA Office of Water Symposium on
Groundwater-Borne Infectious Disease, Etiologic Agents and
Indicators, Washington, DC, December 2-4, 2008.
Czarnetzki, L.R. and J.J. Janssen. 1992. Formation of hypochlorite,
chlorate, and oxygen during NaCl electrolysis from alkaline
solutions at an RuO2/TiO2 anode. Journal of
Applied Electrochemistry. 22:315-324.
De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. Sobsey. 1990. Detection
of enteroviruses and hepatitis A virus in environmental samples by
gene probes and polymerase chain reaction. P. 833-835. In Advances
of Water Analysis and Treatment Proceedings 1989. Water Quality
Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association, San Diego, CA.
Fairbridge, R.W. 1972. The Encyclopedia of Geochemistry and
Environmental Sciences, IVA Volume. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company.
Friedman, M.J., A.S. Hill, S.H Reiber, R.L. Valentine, and G.V.
Korshin. 2009. Assessment of Inorganics Accumulation in Drinking
Water System Scales and Sediments. Published by WRF.
Gallagher, D.L, R.C Hoehn, and A.M. Dietrich. 1994. Sources,
Occurrence, and Control of Chlorine Dioxide By-Product Residuals in
Drinking Water. Published by AwwaRF and AWWA.
Gerke, T.L., K.G. Scheckel, and J.B. Maynard. 2010. Speciation and
distribution of vanadium in drinking water iron pipe corrosion by-
products. Science of the Total Environment. 408(23):5845-5853.
Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, and M.D. Sobsey. 2010.
Evaluation of positively charged alumina nanofibre cartridge filters
for the primary concentration of noroviruses, adenoviruses and male-
specific coliphages from seawater. Journal of Applied Microbiology.
109(2):635-641.
Gordon, G., B. Slootmaekers, S. Tachiyashiki, and D.W. Wood III.
1990. Minimizing chlorite ion and chlorate ion in water treated with
chlorine dioxide. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
82(4):160-165.
Gordon, G. and S. Tachiyashiki. 1991. Kinetics and mechanism of
formation of chlorate ion from the hypochlorous acid/chlorite ion
reaction at pH 6-10. Environmental Science and Technology.
25(3):468-474.
Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, B. Hoyt, A.J. Gillette, and A.
Wilczak. 1993. Controlling the formation of chlorate ion in liquid
hypochlorite feedstocks. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 85(9):89-97.
Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, and B.P. Bubnis. 1995. Minimizing Chlorate
Ion Formation in Drinking Water When Hypochlorite Ion is the
Chlorinating Agent. Published by AwwaRF and AWWA.
Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, C. Kuo, R.S. Cushing, and R.H.
Sakaji. 1997. Predicting liquid bleach decomposition. Journal of the
American Water Works Association. 89(4):142-149.
Howard, K.L. and G.L. Boyer. 2007. Quantitative analysis of
cyanobacterial toxins by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization
mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry. 79(15):5980-5986.
Hunt, R.J., M.A. Borchardt, K.D. Richards, and S.K. Spencer. 2010.
Assessment of sewer source contamination of drinking water wells
using tracers and human enteric viruses. Environmental Science and
Technology. 44(20):7956-7963.
Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill,
and J. Vinje[acute]. 2005. Rapid and sensitive detection of
noroviruses by using TaqMan-based one-step reverse transcription-PCR
assays and application to naturally contaminated shellfish samples.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71(4):1870-1875.
Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. Wymer, and G.S. Fout.
2009. New electropositive filter for concentrating enteroviruses and
noroviruses from large volumes of water. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 75(8):2393-2399.
Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater,
aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the
aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology. 38:6377-
6384.
Kolodziej, E.P. and D.L. Sedlak. 2007. Rangeland grazing as a source
of steroid hormones to surface waters. Environmental Science and
Technology. 41:3514-3520.
Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg,
L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and
other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: A
national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology.
36:1202-1211.
Lambertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. Loge, B.A. Kieke, and
M.A. Borchardt. 2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses,
and noroviruses from drinking water by use of glass wool filters.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74(10):2990-2996.
Mash, H., K. Schenck, and L. Rosenblum. 2010. Hypochlorite oxidation
of select androgenic steroids. Water Research. 44:1950-1960.
Monpoeho, S., A. Deh[eacute]e, B. Mignotte, L. Schwartzbrod, V.
Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, S. Billaudel, and V. Ferr[eacute]. 2000.
Quantification of enterovirus RNA in sludge samples by single tube
real-time RT-PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88-95.
Oehrle, S.A., B. Southwell, and J. Westrick. 2010. Detection of
various freshwater cyanobacterial toxins using ultra-performance
liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Toxicon. 55:965-972.
Rice, R.G. and M. Gomez-Taylor. 1986. Occurrence of by-products of
strong oxidants reacting with drinking water contaminants-scope of
the problem. Environmental Health Perspectives. 69:31-44.
Siddiqui, M.S. 1996. Chlorine-ozone interactions: Formation of
chlorate. Water Research. 30(8):2160-2170.
Snyder, S.A., B.D. Stanford, A.N. Pisarenko, G. Gordon, and M.
Asami. 2009. Hypochlorite--An Assessment of Factors that Influence
the Formation of Perchlorate and Other Contaminants. Jointly funded
by AWWA and WRF. Available on the Internet at http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/PDF/HypochloriteAssess.pdf.
SM 3125. 2005. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass
Spectrometry. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water &
Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I
Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
SM 4110D. 2005. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part
D, Ion Chromatographic Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st
edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20001-3710.
Stanford, B.D., A.B. Pisarenko, S.A. Snyder, and G. Gordon. 2011.
Perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate in hypochlorite solutions:
Guidelines for utilities. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 103(6):71-83.
USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8--Determination of Trace Elements in Waters
and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Revision
5.4. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/.
USEPA. 1995. Handbook for Preparing Office of Research and
Development Reports, Third Edition. EPA 600-K-95-002. August 1995.
USEPA. 1996. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Monitoring
Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant
Data and Other Information Requirements. Federal Register. Vol. 61,
No. 94, p. 24353, May 14, 1996.
USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1--Determination of Inorganic Anions in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. Available on the
Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, August 19, 1998.
USEPA. 1999a. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance
Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-99-014. April 1999. Available on
the Internet at http://water.
[[Page 26095]]
epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/mdbptg.cfm.
USEPA. 1999b. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register.
Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815-R-01-
004. August 2001.
USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods
for Chemical Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 159, p.
49547, August 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review
Handbook, Third Edition. EPA 100-B-06-002. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf.
USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)
for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No.
2, p. 367, January 4, 2007.
USEPA. 2008. Method 522--Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking
Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). Version
1.0, September 2008. EPA/600/R-08/101. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3--Measurement of Purgeable Organic
Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry. Version 1.0, June 2009. EPA 815-B-09-009. Available on
the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
USEPA. 2009b. Method 537--Determination of Selected Perfluorinated
Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1,
September 2009. EPA/600/R-08/092. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2010a. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Federal Register.
Vol. 75, No. 35, p. 8063, February 23, 2010.
USEPA. 2010b. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation--Presentation
Materials. April 7, 2010.
USEPA. 2010c. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation--Meeting Notes. April
2010.
USEPA. 2010d. The Analysis of Regulated Contaminant Occurrence Data
from Public Water Systems in Support of the Second Six-Year Review
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-006.
September 2010. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/second_review/upload/6Yr2OccurrenceReport_Revised_September2010.pdf.
USEPA. 2010e. Method 539--Determination of Hormones in Drinking
Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography
Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS).
Version 1.0, November 2010. EPA 815-B-10-001. Available on the
Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
USEPA. 2010f. Technical Basis for the Lowest Concentration Minimum
Reporting Level (LCMRL) Calculator. EPA 815-R-11-001. December 2010.
USEPA. 2011a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 76, No. 42, p. 11713, March 3, 2011.
USEPA. 2011b. Method 218.7--Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post-Column Derivatization
and UV-Visible Spectroscopic Detection. Version 1.0, November 2011.
EPA 815-R-11-005. Available on the Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
USEPA. 2012a. Information Collection Request for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3). March 2012.
USEPA. 2012b. Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3). EPA 815-R-11-004.
January 2012.
USEPA. 2012c. UCMR 3 Contaminants--Information Compendium. EPA 815-
B-11-001. January 2012.
USEPA. 2012d. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and
Information Document. Version 2.0. EPA 815-R-11-003. January 2012.
von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking water: Part II.
Disinfection and by-product formation in presence of bromide, iodide
or chlorine. Water Research. 37:1469-1487.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Chlorite and Chlorate in
Drinking-water, Background Document for Development of WHO
Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/86.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,
Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Chemicals, Indian lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: April 16, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 141 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4,
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
Subpart C--Monitoring and Analytical Requirements
0
2. Section 141.23 is amended in the table to paragraph (k)(1) by
revising entries 18, 19, and 20; by revising footnotes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 13, 19, and 22; and by removing footnote 23.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SM \4\ (18th, SM \4\ (20th
Contaminant Methodology \13\ EPA method ASTM \3\ 19th ed.) ed.) SM online \22\ Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
18. Nitrate.......... Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327-97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B-00........... B-1011 \8\
Chromatography. \19\.
Automated 353.2 \6\........ D3867-90 A...... 4500-NO3\-\ F... 4500-NO3\-\ F... 4500-NO3\-\ F-00
Cadmium
Reduction.
Ion Selective ................. ................ 4500-NO3\-\ D... 4500-NO3\-\ D... 4500-NO3\-\ D-00.... 601 \7\
Electrode.
Manual Cadmium ................. D3867-90 B...... 4500-NO3\-\ E... 4500-NO3\-\ E... 4500-NO3\-\ E-00
Reduction.
Capillary Ion ................. D6508-00.
Electrophoresis.
19. Nitrite.......... Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327-97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B-00........... B-1011 \8\
Chromatography. \19\.
Automated 353.2 \6\........ D3867-90 A...... 4500-NO3\-\ F... 4500-NO3\-\ F... 4500-NO3\-\ F-00
Cadmium
Reduction.
Manual Cadmium ................. D3867-90 B...... 4500-NO3\-\ E... 4500-NO3\-\ E... 4500-NO3\-\ E-00
Reduction.
Spectrophotometr ................. ................ 4500-NO2\-\ B... 4500-NO2\-\ B... 4500-NO2\-\ B-00
ic.
Capillary Ion ................. D6508-00
Electrophoresis.
[[Page 26096]]
20. Ortho-phosphate.. Colorimetric, 365.1 \6\........ ................ 4500-P F........ 4500-P F
Automated,
Ascorbic Acid.
Colorimetric, ................. D515-88 A....... 4500-P E........ 4500-P E
ascorbic acid,
single reagent.
Colorimetric ................. ................ ................ ................ .................... I-1601-85 \5\
Phosphomolybdat I-2601-90 \5\
e; Automated- I-2598-85 \5\
segmented flow;
Automated
Discrete.
Ion 300.0 \6\, 300.1 D4327-97, 03.... 4110 B.......... 4110 B.......... 4110 B-00
Chromatography. \19\.
Capillary Ion ................. D6508-00
Electrophoresis.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, http://www.astm.org.; Annual Book of ASTM
Standards 1994, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1999, Vols. 11.01 and
11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02.
\4\ Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710;
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th
edition (1995); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition (1998).The following methods from this edition cannot be
used: 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B, and 3114 B.
\5\ U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425; Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality
Laboratory--Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93-125, 1993; Techniques of Water
Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A-1, 3rd edition, 1989.
\6\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available as Technical Report
PB94-120821 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov.
\7\ The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 ``Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water,'' July 1994, PN
221890-001, Analytical Technology, Inc. Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 02129.
\8\ Method B-1011. ``Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,'' August, 1987. Copies may
be obtained from Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, Telephone: 508/482-2963, Fax: 508/482-4056.
* * * * *
\13\ Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when
samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and
arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may
also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559-
90D, unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made.
* * * * *
\19\ ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water,'' Vol. 1, EPA 815-R-00-014, August 2000. Available as
Technical Report PB2000-106981 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov.
* * * * *
\22\ Standard Methods Online, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, available at http://www.standardmethods.org.
The year in which each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods
listed are the only online versions that may be used.
0
3. Section 141.35 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a) by revising the third sentence,
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text,
0
c. By revising paragraph (b)(1),
0
d. In paragraph (b)(2) by revising the first sentence,
0
e. By revising paragraph (c)(1),
0
f. By revising paragraph (c)(2),
0
g. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) by removing ``May 4, 2007'' and adding in its
place, ``August 1, 2012,''
0
h. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by adding a new second and third sentence,
0
i. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing ``June 4, 2007'' and adding in its
place, ``October 1, 2012,''
0
j. By revising paragraph (c)(5)(i),
0
k. By revising paragraph (c)(6) introductory text,
0
l. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(ii),
0
m. By revising paragraph (d)(1),
0
n. By revising paragraph (d)(2), and
0
o. In the table to paragraph (e) by revising entry 6.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
(a) * * * For the purposes of this section, PWS ``population
served'' is the retail population served directly by the PWS as
reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/
Fed); wholesale or consecutive populations are not included. * * *
(b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting
requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria
in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2).
(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of
your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically and
others by mail. Information that must be submitted using EPA's
electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm.
Documentation that is required to be mailed can be submitted either: To
UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by email at
[email protected]. In addition, you must notify the
public of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data
as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part (40 CFR
141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated contaminants
under this monitoring must also address such detections as part of
their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of this
part (40 CFR 141.151).
(2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA concerning your
required monitoring and your system does not meet the applicability
criteria for UCMR established in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a
change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements under
UCMR as defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must mail or
email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Contact and zip code information. You must provide contact
information by October 1, 2012, and provide updates within 30 days if
this information changes. The contact information must be submitted
using EPA's electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing
address, phone number, and email address for your PWS Technical Contact
and your PWS Official. In addition, as a one-time reporting
requirement, you must report the U.S. Postal Service Zip Code(s) for
all areas being served water by your PWS.
(2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide
your sampling location and inventory information by October 1, 2012,
using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit, verify
or update the following information for each sampling location, or for
each approved representative sampling location (as specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding representative sampling
locations): PWS identification (PWSID) code; PWS facility
identification code; water source type, sampling point identification
code; and
[[Page 26097]]
sampling point type code; (as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of
this section). If this information changes, you must report updates,
including new sources and sampling locations that are put in use before
or during the PWS' UCMR sampling period, to EPA's electronic data
reporting system within 30 days of the change.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * * The proposed well must be representative of the highest
annual volume producing and most consistently active wells in the
representative array. If that representative well is not in use at the
scheduled sampling time, you must select and sample an alternative
representative well. * * *
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems
may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey
(List 2) schedules up to October 1, 2012, using EPA's electronic data
reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to
your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints,
or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of
monitoring), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date.
You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken
according to the assigned schedule, and you must provide the
alternative schedule you are requesting. You are subject to your
assigned UCMR sampling schedule or the schedule that you revised on or
before October 1, 2012, unless and until you receive a letter from EPA
specifying a new schedule.
* * * * *
(6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report
all data elements specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this
section, using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You also must
report any changes, relative to what is currently posted, made to data
elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and
purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
(ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts
the data to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 days from
the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified
in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)). You have 60 days from when the laboratory posts
the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve,
and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not electronically
approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60 days of the
laboratory's posting data to EPA's electronic reporting system, the
data will be considered approved by you and available for State and EPA
review.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Contact and zip code information. EPA will send you a notice
requesting contact information for key individuals at your system,
including name, affiliation, mailing address, phone number and email
address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your
PWS Official. You are required to provide this contact information
within 90 days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If this contact information changes,
you also must provide updates within 30 days of the change, as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In addition, as a one-
time reporting requirement, you must report the U.S. Postal Service Zip
Code(s) for all areas being served water by your PWS.
(2) Reporting sampling information. You must record all data
elements listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each
sample form and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling
Coordinator. You must send this information as specified in the
instructions of your sampling kit, which will include the due date and
return address. You must report any changes made in data elements 1
through 6 by mailing or emailing an explanation of the nature and
purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(e) * * *
Table 1--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Element Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
6. Disinfectant Type................... All of the disinfectants that have been added to the water being
sampled. To be reported by systems for each sampling point, with
possible choices being:
CLGA= Gaseous chlorine.
CLOF = Offsite Generated Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid form).
CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite (no storage).
CAGC = Chloramine (formed from gaseous chlorine).
CAOF = Chloramine (formed from offsite hypochlorite).
CAON = Chloramine (formed from onsite hypochlorite).
CLDO = Chlorine dioxide.
OZON = Ozone.
ULVL = Ultraviolet Light.
OTHD = All Other Types of Disinfectant.
NODU = No Disinfectant Used.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26098]]
Subpart E--Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations
and Prohibition on Lead Use
0
4. Section 141.40 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(1),
0
c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) introductory text,
0
d. By revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A),
0
e. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text,
0
f. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A),
0
g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C),
0
h. By revising paragraph (a)(3),
0
i. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory text by removing ``August 2,
2007'' and adding in its place, ``October 1, 2012'',
0
j. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B),
0
k. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C),
0
l. In paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) by removing the last sentence,
0
m. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(G),
0
n. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii) by removing ``April 4, 2007'' and adding in
its place, ``August 1, 2012'' and by revising the last sentence,
0
o. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) introductory text,
0
p. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(A)(1),
0
q. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv),
0
r. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi), and
0
s. By adding paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) General applicability. This section specifies the monitoring
and quality control requirements that must be followed if you own or
operate a public water system (PWS) that is subject to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), as specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section. In addition, this section specifies the
UCMR requirements for State and Tribal participation. For the purposes
of this section, PWS ``population served,'' ``State,'' '' PWS
Official,'' ``PWS Technical Contact,'' and ``finished water'' apply as
defined in Sec. 141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is
required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system
(e.g., community water system, non-transient non-community water
system, etc.), and its retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on
December 31, 2010.
(1) Applicability to transient non-community systems. If you own or
operate a transient non-community water system, and you are notified by
your State or EPA, you must permit the State, EPA or their contractors
to collect samples for the contaminants specified on List 3 of Table 1,
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(2) * * *
(i) Large systems. If you own or operate a retail PWS (other than a
transient non-community system) that serves more than 10,000 people,
you must monitor according to the specifications in this paragraph
(a)(2)(i). If you believe that your applicability status is different
than EPA has specified in the notification letter that you received, or
if you are subject to UCMR requirements and you have not been notified
by either EPA or your State, you must report to EPA, as specified in
Sec. 141.35(b)(2) or (c)(4).
(A) * * * You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List
1 and Total Chromium per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will
not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three
monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample containers,
provide pre-paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct
the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for
all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs
(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS
that serves 10,000 or fewer people you must monitor as follows:
(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 1 and Total Chromium per Table 1, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that
you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.
* * * * *
(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must allow EPA or its representative to
collect samples to support monitoring for the unregulated contaminants
on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are
notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring
plan for Pre-Screen Testing. In addition, you must permit the
collection of samples as necessary for EPA to perform analysis for
total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic
spores.
(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated
contaminants and total chromium monitoring are provided in the
following table:
Table 1--UCMR Contaminant List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-CAS 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location \c\ monitoring to be
Registry No. \a\ level \b\ completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2,3-trichloropropane........... 96-18-4 EPA 524.3........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
1,3-butadiene.................... 106-99-0 EPA 524.3........... 0.1 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
chloromethane.................... 74-87-3 EPA 524.3........... 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
1,1-dichloroethane............... 75-34-3 EPA 524.3........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
bromomethane..................... 74-83-9 EPA 524.3........... 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22).. 75-45-6 EPA 524.3........... 0.08 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
bromochloromethane (Halon 1011).. 74-97-5 EPA 524.3........... 0.06 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26099]]
Synthetic Organic Compound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,4-dioxane...................... 123-91-1 EPA 522............. 0.07 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vanadium......................... 7440-62-2 EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
D5673-10, SM 3125.
molybdenum....................... 7439-98-7 EPA 200.8, ASTM 1. [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
D5673-10, SM 3125.
cobalt........................... 7440-48-4 EPA 200.8, ASTM 1. [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
D5673-10, SM 3125.
strontium........................ 7440-24-6 EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.3 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
D5673-10, SM 3125.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium-6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chromium-6 \d\................... 18540-29-9 EPA 218.7........... 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxyhalide Anion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chlorate......................... 14866-68-3 EPA 300.1, ASTM D 20 [micro]g/L........... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
6581-08, SM 4110D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfluorinated Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 1763-23-1 EPA 537............. 0.04 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
(PFOS).
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).... 335-67-1 EPA 537............. 0.02 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).... 375-95-1 EPA 537............. 0.02 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 355-46-4 EPA 537............. 0.03 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
(PFHxS).
perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).. 375-85-9 EPA 537............. 0.01 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 375-73-5 EPA 537............. 0.09 [micro]g/L......... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
(PFBS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2: Screening Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hormones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol.............. 50-28-2 EPA 539............. 0.0004 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol...... 57-63-6 EPA 539............. 0.0009 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
estriol.......................... 50-27-1 EPA 539............. 0.0008 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
equilin.......................... 474-86-2 EPA 539............. 0.004 [micro]g/L........ EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
estrone.......................... 53-16-7 EPA 539............. 0.002 [micro]g/L........ EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
testosterone..................... 58-22-0 EPA 539............. 0.0001 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
4-androstene-3,17-dione.......... 63-05-8 EPA 539............. 0.0003 [micro]g/L....... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3: Pre-Screen Testing \e\
Microbiological Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
enteroviruses.................... N/A N/A................. N/A..................... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
noroviruses...................... N/A N/A................. N/A..................... EPTDS....................... 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Chromium Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total chromium................... N/A EPA 200.8, ASTM 0.2 [micro]g/L.......... EPTDS and DSMRT............. 1/1/2013-12/31/2015
D5673-10, SM 3125.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Contaminant: The name of the contaminant to be analyzed.
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: A unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: Method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants. For List 3, analyses will only be performed by
laboratories under contract to EPA.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved
analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring, that the MRLs specified in UCMR 3 result in excessive resampling, EPA
will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. For List 3, minimum reporting level is based on volume
of water filtered and PCR amplification level.
[[Page 26100]]
5--Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant.
\a\ The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section.
\b\ The minimum reporting level (MRL) is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA.
\c\ Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non-emergency water source in
routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one
representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the
connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume representative connection must be sampled.
See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative ground water EPTDSs. Sampling for total chromium,
chromium-6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate must be conducted at distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling
locations. DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where the
water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS.
\d\ Chromium-6 will be measured as soluble chromate ion (CAS Registry Number 13907-45-4).
\e\ EPA will collect the samples from List 3 Pre-Screen Testing sampling locations.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame
and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water
source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in
this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round of sampling, if a
sample location is non-operational for more than one month before and
one month after the scheduled sampling month (i.e., it is not possible
for you to sample within the window specified in Table 2, in this
paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(5) to
reschedule your sampling.
Table 2--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical.......................... Surface water or ground 12 months.................. You must monitor for 4
water under the direct consecutive quarters.
influence of surface Sample events must
water (GWUDI) occur 3 months apart.
(includes all sampling (Example: If first
locations for which monitoring is in
some or all of the January, the second
water comes from a monitoring must occur
surface water or GWUDI any time in April,
source at any time the third any time in
during the 12 month July and the fourth
monitoring period). any time in October.)
Ground water........... 12 months.................. You must monitor twice
in a consecutive 12-
month period. Sample
events must occur 5-7
months apart.
Microbiological................... Ground water........... 12 months.................. You must monitor twice
in a consecutive 12-
month period. Sample
events must occur 5-7
months apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment
Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening
Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at
each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of Table
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water
system with multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from
EPA or the State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified
in Sec. 141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved
representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Assessment
Monitoring must also sample for total chromium, chromium-6, cobalt,
molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate at the location that
represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system
(DSMRT). DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that
currently provides water to customers) in the distribution system where
the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS.
(ii) * * *
(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the
sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling
Coordinator, including data elements listed in Sec. 141.35(e) for each
sample, as specified in Sec. 141.35(d)(2). You must sign and date the
sampling forms.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * * Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR Laboratory
Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or emailed to EPA
at: [email protected].
(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is an estimate of the
quantitation limit. Assuming good instrumentation and experienced
analysts, an MRL is achievable, with 95% confidence, by 75% of
laboratories nationwide.
(A) * * *
(1) All laboratories performing analysis under UCMR must
demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data quality objectives at
or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section.
* * * * *
(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified
sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares
and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) sample for
accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD)
samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision for
all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. LFSM/
LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in
accordance with UCMR requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or
1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch,
whichever is more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification
concentrations must be alternated between a low-level fortification and
mid-level fortification
[[Page 26101]]
approximately 50% of the time. (For example: A set of 40 samples will
require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD paired samples. The
first LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified at either the low-
level or mid-level, and the second LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be
fortified with the other standard, either the low-level or mid-level,
whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set.)
The low-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must be within
50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an MRL of 1
[mu]g/L the acceptable fortification levels must be between 0.5 [mu]g/L
and 1.5 [mu]g/L). The mid-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration
must be within 20% of the mid-level calibration standard
for each contaminant, and is to represent, where possible and where the
laboratory has data from previously analyzed samples, an approximate
average concentration observed in previous analyses of that analyte.
There are no UCMR contaminant recovery acceptance criteria specified
for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.
* * * * *
(vi) Reporting. You must require your laboratory to submit these
data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic data
reporting system, accessible at (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm), within 120 days from the
sample collection date. You then have 60 days from when the laboratory
posts the data to review, approve and submit the data to the State and
EPA, via EPA's electronic data reporting system. If you do not
electronically approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60
days of the laboratory posting data to EPA's electronic reporting
system, the data will be considered approved and available for State
and EPA review.
* * * * *
(c) Incorporation by reference. These standards are incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved
material is available for inspection either electronically at
www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from
the sources below. The Public Reading Room (EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC) is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. The material
is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_0f_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(1) The following methods from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
(i) EPA Method 200.8 ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters
and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry,'' Revision
5.4, 1994, available at https://www.NEMI.gov.
(ii) EPA Method 218.7 ``Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post-Column Derivatization
and UV-Visible Spectroscopic Detection,'' Version 1.0, November 2011,
EPA 815-R-11-005, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
(iii) EPA Method 300.1 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, 1997, available
at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
(iv) EPA Method 522 ``Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking
Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM),'' Version 1.0,
September 2008, EPA/600/R-08/101, available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
(v) EPA Method 524.3 ``Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds
in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,''
Version 1.0, June 2009, EPA 815-B-09-009, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
(vi) EPA Method 537 ``Determination of Selected Perfluorinated
Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.1,
September 2009, EPA/600/R-08/092, available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
(vii) EPA Method 539 ``Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water
by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray
Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS),'' Version 1.0,
November 2010, EPA 815-B-10-001, available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
(2) The following methods from ``ASTM International,'' 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
(i) ASTM D5673-10 ``Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' approved August 1,
2010. Available for purchase at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
(ii) ASTM D6581-08 ``Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide,
Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion
Chromatography,'' approved August 15, 2008. Available for purchase at
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.
(3) The following methods from ``Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water & Wastewater,'' 21st edition (2005), American
Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
(i) SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass
Spectrometry.''
(ii) SM 4110D ``Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part
D, Ion Chromatography Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide.''
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
5. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
Subpart B--Primary Enforcement Responsibility
0
6. Section 142.16 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by removing ``141.40,''.
0
b. In paragraph (j)(1) by revising the first sentence.
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring
requirements in Sec. Sec. 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe
the procedures and criteria, that it will use to review waiver
applications and issue waiver determinations. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-9978 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P